


4 ow" ae 
i ese TN 
* mal 


eo 


CL110.6 BaYT2 


TRINITY COLLEGE 
LIBRARY | 


DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 


Rec'd MAR.3-1 1009. 











BIBLE CRITICISM 
AND THE 


AVERAGE MAN 


ia 
‘ 





Duke Mriversity tnaced Hi, 


io 


BIBLE CRITICISM 


AND THE 


AVERAGE MAN 


BY 


Howard Agnew Johnston, Ph.D., D.D. 
Author of 


“GOD'S METHODS OF TRAINING WORKERS ”’ 





PTET? 


New York Chicago Toronto 
FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY 
London & Edinburg 


VAlet 4 





TO MY MOTHER 








INTRODUCTION 


POPULAR hand-book on the subject of 
po Bible Criticism is a wide-spread need. 
A new generation of Christian young 
men and women is demanding intelligent dis- 
cussion of the subject. Their demand is rea- 
sonable. They should be informed. As far as 
possible the story of the movement should be told 
in plain words for plain people. Above all things 
else the statement of the case should seek to 
settle faith, rather than foment doubts and ques- 
tionings. Such is the task undertaken in this 
book. 

It is time to attempt to measure the real char- 
acter of the critical movement, to establish its 
true value, and to fix a definite attitude toward 
its various claims. It was necessary to wait until 
the field has been exploited about as thoroughly 
as the nature of the movement would allow. That 
time has practically been reached. Nothing ma- 
terially new is now appearing, or is likely to ap- 

7 


8 Introduction 


pear, so far as the fundamental theories are con- 
cerned. 

The plan of the book involves many references 
to writers in a general way, without giving 
volume and page. It was deemed wise thus to 
give a less technical account of opinion. Yet the 
reference is usually sufficiently specific to allow 
one who may desire to consult fully the author- 
ities mentioned. 

Howarp AGNEW JOHNSTON. 

New York, 1902. 


CONTENTS 


I 


THE AVERAGE MAN 


PAGE 


A large factor in any problem. Not sufficiently con- 
sidered by the specialist. Specialists in disagree- 
ment. The critics over-confident. Gladstone on 
various grounds for judging Scripture.......... 


Il 


THE BIBLE 


The Book of books. Opinions of great men. Unique 
character explained. Statement of Robertson 
Smith. Increased circulation. Priceless value. : 


It 


LITERARY CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE 


The Bible is literature. Genuine criticism necessary. 
Higher Criticism defined. Statement of Principal 
Fairbairn. Considerable unreliability in the work 
of the critics. The claim of Dr. Briggs denied by 
Dr. Zenos. The recent discussions about Homer 
and Thackeray. A precarious science at best.... 


9 


21 


32 


10 Contents 


IV 


A LESSON IN CONFIDENCE 
PAGE 
Transition times involve dangers to be avoided. 


Ultra conservative as hurtful as ultra radical. 
The era of the new physical science and its con- 
flict. The three classes of men involved. Facts 
won against prejudice and assumption. Reassur- 
ance followed. The same experience in Biblical 
criticism now. The outcome certain to conserve 
HEUER oo ccecn vec cccc'c oe osiee em sian eileen 41 


HONOUR TO HONOURABLE CRITICS 


The average man desires to be fair. Sometimes diffi- 
cult. Duty of all Christians toward Christian 
critics. Statement of Dr. George Adam Smith. 
Representative of a group of critics. Position of 
Dr. McGiffert. Conservative critics must also be 
recognized. Have not been honoured as they de- 


SOLVE ocicecisiccieces cocsouscce ous vin einen 46 
VI 
VARIOUS THEORIES ABOUT THE PENTA- 
TEUCH 


The main battle ground in the discussion. Early 
intimations of the modern differences of opinion. 
The Document Theory. The Fragment Theory. 
The Supplement Theory. The Crystallization 
Theory. The Modified Document Theory. The 


Contents 1! 


PAGE 
Development Theory. Three codes frequently 
mentioned. Genesis in Colours. Four lines of 
proof urged by the critics. A wide difference in 
details, though a general agreement about the 
WEE ele SHDICCE ase tetanic d miaioimtel sh teicicnc lacie cere = 54 


VII 


WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC SCHOLARSHIP? 


The inquiry pertinent. Majorities not enough. The 
twofold demand of exact science. Dangers in 
the indulgence of the critical imagination. State- 
ments of Professors Cheyne and Evans. Com- 
parative trustworthiness of Scriptural and other 
records. Statements of Drs. Francis Brown, Har- 
PCEMANCEOENEES. «2.5515 2 skool eens wore hde a cena 66 


Vill 
FACTS FROM THE MONUMENTS 


Statement of Prof. Sayce. A former assumption of 
the critics demolished. Discoveries of Tel el 
Amarna and Tel el Hesy. Literary activity proved 
in the time of Abraham. Other corroborations of 
Scripture. Statements of Rawlinson and Brugsch 
Bey regarding the Egyptology. The Akkadian 
record of the flood. Ur of the Chaldees........ 73 


IX 
THE HISTORIC MOSES 


Historical arguments involved. The effort to elimi- 
nate Moses. Vital importance of the establish- 


12 Contents 


PAGE 


ment of the Theocracy. Substantial Mosaic au- 
thorship more important than any other question 
of authorship. Prima facie assumption of Mosaic 
authorship. Acknowledged by Kuenen. Histori- 
cal Israel involves the Mosaic system. Testimony 
Of Scripture . 2000 ccccsvees scence cd on 


THE BOOK OF GENESIS 


General purpose of the Bible. Special purpose of 
Genesis. Unity of the record. Moses used a 
variety of material. Analysis of the contents. 
Probable later interpolations and comments. An- 
tiquity of man and Chronology of Genesis. The 
element of Allegory in Genesis.............2.0-- 


XI 
THE BOOK OF EXODUS 


We touch Moses here. Purpose of the book. Ob- 
jections to Mosaic authorship considered. Unity 
of the historic movement. Egyptology proved 
accurate. The Tabernacle discussion........... 


XII 
THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS 


The centre and heart of the Pentateuch. Views 
about the legislation. Tokens of early origin. 
Pre-Canaanite indications. A prophetic character 
£00 thE) OOM .e.c)5. bad es eeig es = oc eles be ee 


81 


95 


Contents 


XIII 


THE BOOK OF NUMBERS 


= 


PAGE 


Numerous special problems. The gap of thirty-seven 
years. Difficulties involved in the figures. The 
place of the Levites. The episode of Balaam. In- 
dications of Mosaic authorship. Evidences of 
MALCOM ATIECEPONALIONS) Fat ans sae) ners aio simieiesiciviexcdeeees < 


XIV 


THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY 


The title likely to mislead. It breathes the atmos- 
phere of the living Moses. Critics oppose Mosaic 
authorship. Theory of special authorship in Jo- 
siah’s time. Reasons for such a theory insufficient. 
Parallel discovery by Luther in Dark Ages of 
Christianity. The theory not a scientific infer- 
ence, but a preconceived assumption............. 


XV 


THE BOOK OF JOSHUA 


Jewish idea of the Pentateuch. Joshua and the 
Hexateuch. Inferences from the Book of Jasher. 
Theories of later authorship. Indications of early 
authorship. Joshua and Moses. The high level 

_ of the early beginning of Israel. The ultimate 
outcome of the critical movement will give Moses 
sea DICE pIACe hes Sects sk ae we Satine sie 


107 


113 


119 


14 Contents 


XVI 


THE BOOKS OF JUDGES AND SAMUEL 


PAGE 
Judges not technically history, but collection of 
narratives. Fact of silence about the Tabernacle 
noted. A gradual development in Israel, but not 
such as to preclude a high beginning with Moses. 
Samuel the organizer of national life. Second 
Samuel and the Life of David. Light upon some 

of the Psalms. ..\......-+ 0+» 01ss,0.56 6ineeinenn amen 124 


XVII 
THE BOOKS OF KINGS AND CHRONICLES 


Relations of both books involved in serious prob- 
lems. Both have same general plan. The scope 
of Kings. The scope of Chronicles. The article 
of Dr. Francis Brown. Serious difficulties in 
Chronicles. Actual and alleged discrepancies. 
Explanations offered. The Priests, the Taber- 
nacle, and the Temple. Revolutionary theory of 
the critics. Reasons against it. Details consid- 
ered. Not likely to be accepted...) .Sucnmamunemm 129 


XVIII 
THE POETICAL BOOKS 


Do not demand special attention. The Book of Job. 
The Book of Psalms. The Song of Songs which 
is Solomon’s. The Wisdom Literature. The 
Book of Lamentations. ...)./.)....... 000 samen 141 


Contents 15 


XIX 


THE MAJOR PROPHETS 
PAGE 
Most of the prophetic books present few large prob- 
lems. The Book of Isaiah. Differing view of two 
Oxford Professors. Views of Prof. Driver. Opin- 
ions of Prof. Margoliouth. The Books of Jere- 
miah and Ezekiel. Imagery of Ezekiel. The Book 
of Daniel. Special theories considered. Indica- 
tions that it belongs in the Persian period....... 145 


XX 
THE MINOR PROPHETS 


The Book of the Twelve. The work of Dr. George 
Adam Smith. Difficulties recognized. The Book 
of Amos genuine. The unity of Hosea maintained. 
Micah probably all authentic. Critical points in 
the other nine books not as important as his- 
torical. Special reference to Jonah............. 156 


XXI 
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 


Recent discussion of New Testament material. His- 
toric value of the Gospels. Christ portrayed, not 
described. New criticism examined the sources. 
Statement of Dr. Fairbairn. A word of warning 
against the discussions in the Encyclopedia Bib- 
lica. Views of Schmiedel and Abbott. Dr. Mc- 
Giffert on the general theory of the Evangelical 


16 Contents 


PAGE 
- critics. Dr. Gregory on Why Four Gospels. Indi- 
cations of Independence in authorship. Material 
fixed in the second half of the first century...... 162 


XXII 
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 


The index to the development of the Church. Gen- 
eral opinion as to Luke’s authorship. Discussion 
of the “we” passages. Written about the year 
80. Prof. Ramsey on the historical value of Acts. 
The Judaistic and universal tendencies in the early 
Church. The true liberty of the Gospel came 
mainly through Paul. Paul’s unique preparation 
for his life work. Dr. McGiffert’s statement of 
Paul’s conception of Christianity. The contro- 
versy in the Church largely Pauline and anti- 
Pattline .2...ccccercees ce eve ene ese ovenenn——aan 171 


XXIII 
THE WRITINGS OF JAMES, PETER AND JUDE 


The authoritative New Testament Canon. The epis- 
tle of James first in the list. Arguments for and 
against a late date. First Peter also practical, 
rather than theological. Genuineness generally 
conceded. The Second Epistle much discussed. 
Its Petrine authorship questioned. Indications 
which point to Peter as the author. The Epistle 
of Jude. Much like a part of Second Peter. 
Characteristic features. Question of authorship 
must be left unsettled. .........0..scscsvueeniee 181 


Contents 17 


XXIV 


THE WRITINGS OF PAUL 
PAGE 


Paul the dominant factor in the Apostolic Church. 
First Thessalonians generally accepted as Pauline. 
Written from Corinth about 52. Second Thessa- 
lonians and Paul’s view of the second advent con- 
sidered. Galatians one of four undisputed epis- 
tles. Opposes the Judaistic tendency. First Cor- 
inthians soon followed. Special features. Sec- 
ond Corinthians a sequel to the first. More of 
Paul’s autobiography here. Romans undisputed, 
except the closing chapters by a few. Tone not 
polemical, but irenic. A full statement of Chris- 
tian doctrine. The last two chapters. Colossians 
and Philemon must be taken together. The story 
of Onesimus. The “ Colossian Heresy” and the 
purpose of the epistle. Evidence of Pauline au- 
thorship. Ephesians written about the same time 
from Rome. The letter probably general. Philip- 
pians uncertain as to time of writing. Personal 
letter of the apostle. The Pastoral letters. Paul’s 
authorship widely denied. Dr. McGiffert’s state- 
ment. Arguments for the Pauline authorship. 
Stajemene or bir rp Gloaze oo 252525 2k ec 190 


XXV 
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 


Importance not adequately emphasized. Distinctive 
characteristics. The object of the epistle. The 
Tabernacle, not the Temple, referred to in the dis- 
cussion of Old Testament ceremonials. Author- 


18 Contents 


PAGE 
ship impossible to determine. Statement of Dr. 


McGiffert. Not written simply to the Jews. Con- 
ceptions different from Paul’s, yet akin to them. 
Emphasizes in a special manner the place of the 
historic: Moses (2605 osc os ccs se eoeacaein o sees ne pete 


XXVI 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 


First Epistle and Fourth Gospel recognized as com- 
ing from same writer. Second and Third John 
conceded to be by the same writer. But Second 
John and First John reveal the same authorship. 
Dr. Marcus Dods on the Johanine authorship of 
the Gospel. Prof. Sandy’s statement. Ezra 
Abbott on the Gnostics’ acceptance of John. In- 
ternal evidence considered. Independence of the 
Fourth Gospel shown. John necessarily condensed 
accounts of Christ’s teachings. John’s method of 
argument. Dr. McGiffert on the importance of 
this Gospel. The Book of Revelation. Argu- 
ments for early and later dates. Arguments for 
and against John’s authorship. Discussion by 
Canon Westcott. Revelation largely a sealed book. 
Deals with conditions and principles, rather than 
dates and individuals. Commentary by Rev. J. 
S. Hughes. Will havea more satisfactory place in 
the future of the Church’s study of the Bible.... 216 


XXVII 


THE PLACE OF MIRACLES 
Extreme critics deny the supernatural. Important 
to remember the actual condition of the masses of 
the people in Bible times. The kindergarten 


Contents 19 


PAGE 
method in Pedagogy. Miracles educational rather 
than apologetic. The philosophy of miracle stated. 
Illustrated in book of Jonah. Our Lord defines 
the place and limitations of miracle. Vigorous 
discussion by Dr. Bruce. Statement of Dr. 
Purves. Miracles have not lost their apologetic 
value. The miracles of the incarnation and resur- 
rection the bedrock on which Evengelical Chris- 
LETIGOMIP THESES he ciseitie sais ers isic ois: alo viele vise cisivieieie ola’s penzae 


XXVITI 


CHRIST AND THE CRITICS 


What of Christ’s authority regarding critical ques- 
tions? Was not His purpose to sanction any 
special theory of authorship. Insisted upon the 
divine authority in the truth. Statement of Rob- 
ertson Smith. Christ’s reference involves general 
reliability of the record. Mistake to apply Christ’s 
authority where He did not. He set much of the 
Old Testament aside, as no longer binding. The 
eternal truth must be discriminated from the tem- 
porary teachings. Men must be individual judges 
of these things. Facts regarding opposite inter- 
pretations of the same teaching, as regards slav- 
ery, or the Sermon on the Mount. Agreement 


EO WATE Meta ec ciave share fate siehs)eiaiciateie siahe ware erbiaieiee aeinie 240 
XXIX 


THE PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 


Ex-President Woolsey on the subject. Dr. De- 
Witt’s comments on the difficulty of the discus- 
sion. Theories about the sun do not affect its 


20 Contents 


PAGE 
shining. Recent hesitation to define such facts as 
atonement and inspiration. Definite theory not 
necessary. President Patton on the importance 
of recognizing Bible material as historically re- 
liable aside from the theory of inspiration. The 
claim of the Bible to be the revelation of God to 
men. The writers “ moved by the Holy Ghost,” 
but marked by human limitations. Various ma- 
terials in the book. Not everything inspired of 
God, as the devil’s lies. Some parts more import- 
ant than others. No two manuscripts alike. Dis- 
crepancies unimportant as a rule. The Bible as 
we have it sufficient to accomplish the purpose of 
God. General reliability of the record recognized. 
Commentators emphasize the colouring of partic- 
ular words as essential to the truth. Dr. De- 
Witt’s helpful discussion. Discovers scope of 
inspiration by noting character of revelation. His 
definition accepted as adequate.............++e- 247 


XXX 
THE ABIDING WORD OF GOD 


Two hundred years of criticism. Two hundred 
years of Bible translation, dissemination and study. 
Remarkable instance of the saving power of the 
Bible. The evangelical faith results from its free 
and full use. It is the Bread of Life. It “liveth 
and abideth forever”’..........- cones eneeeen aie 


BIBLE CRITICISM AND THE 
AVERAGE MANn 


THE AVERAGE MAN 


HE average man is the large factor in 

} any problem which involves the human 

race. Any theory must find acceptance 
with him before it can have a permanent place 
in the general thought of men. The critic is a 
specialist. He comes as an expert to his task. 
Thus far the publications which present the sub- 
ject of Bible Criticism are largely technical in 
character and intended for those who are scholars 
trained sufficiently to follow the specialist. Hence 
the average man has remained in the outer court 
of the temple, realizing that a discussion has been 
continued for some years regarding the Scrip- 
tures, but not having clear or definite concep- 
tions as to the character of the discussion or its 
results. 

Perhaps this important fact has not been suf- 
ficiently recognized by the specialist. It is doubt- 
less proper to concede a certain degree of author- 

aI 


22 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


ity to an expert just because he is an expert, 
but Dr. W. J. Beecher is certainly correct when 
he insists that “in matters of permanent knowl- 
edge an expert does not expect to be believed 
permanently on the ground of his being an ex- 
pert. He is under obligations to put it into the 
power of men who are not experts to test his 
conclusions. He may do this (1) by the practical 
results he accomplishes. We who ride in trolley 
cars and use telephones and read by electric light 
have no doubt that the experts in electricity have 
studied to some purpose. Or he may (2) do it 
by placing the reasons before their minds in such 
shape that they can understand them. In one of 
these two ways the expert who claims to have 
discovered something for the benefit of mankind 
must, within a reasonable time, make his claim 
good. The public will give him time, will take 
him provisionally for awhile at his own estimate 
of himself. But we cannot forever accept him 
as a mere matter of tradition. He must give us 
proofs level to our understanding, or he will be 
consigned to the limbo to which obsolete tradi- 
tions go.” 

This is all the more obligatory in view of the 
fact that the average man discovers the specialists 
failing to agree with such unanimity as is nec- 
essary to inspire confidence in the mind of the 
general public. When Prof. Roentgen an- 
nounced the discovery of the X ray, every special- 
ist who experimented along the lines of the dis- 


The Average Man 23 


covery was able to verify the claims of the dis- 
coverer, and the unanimous testimony of all 
these specialists left no doubt in the public mind, 
even before the people began to experience the 
blessings which the discovery has brought to men. 
But when Kuenen puts forth one theory of Bible 
Criticism and Wellhausen refuses to accept it, 
putting a different one of his own in its place, 
then the average man hesitates to accept either 
view. Prof. Addis one of the latest critics, in 
his book The Documents of The Hexateuch, says 
of the views of Dr. Staerk, another critic: “ He 
heaps conjecture upon conjecture, and they re- 
main mere conjectures notwithstanding his con- 
stant assurance that this is ‘clear’ and that is 
‘without doubt’” (p. 17). In the face of such 
differences of opinion among the specialists them- 
selves, the average man cannot resist the feeling 
that their findings may not be marked by great 
reliability. The Christian world has been patient 
with modern critical scholars. The few con- 
spicuous exceptions only mark the fact. The de- 
sire for liberty in research is general. We desire 
all the light possible. The spirit of toleration 
is increasing. But we do not forget that san- 
guine people are liable to push a new idea for 
more than it is worth, and press a new method 
beyond what it will bear. Therefore if the prod- 
uct of the critic’s work shall involve a difficulty 
at the point of discriminating between specula- 
tion and demonstration, the critic must see the 


24 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


reasonableness of the hesitation with which the 
average man considers his views. 

The critics have been over-confident about 
their following, assuming a much greater number 
in that following than the facts justify, mainly 
because many who do not agree with their views 
have not opposed them, but have been tolerant in 
the desire for liberty of research. We have a 
significant illustration in a sermon by Dr. Henry 
van Dyke on The Bible As It Is, in which he 
gives full expression to the spirit of toleration, 
but says: “As yet I have seen no good reason 
for thinking that Moses was not the author of 
the Pentateuch, although there are certain por- 
tions of it which he could hardly have written, 
for example the account of his own death and 
burial; and the prophecies of Isaiah seem to me 
to be well enough accounted for by the supposi- 
tion of a single author with two different styles. 
These opinions may be due to ignorance, but 
many of the conclusions of the higher criticism 
present themselves to such literary judgment as 
I possess in the same aspect of inconclusive dog- 
matism as the theories of those who would per- 
suade us that the poems of Homer were written 
by another man of the same name, and that 
Francis Bacon was the author of Shakespear’s 
plays.” 

There is another consideration which Mr. Glad- 
stone urges in his book The Impregnable Rock 
of Holy Scripture. He reminds us that the Scrip- 


The Average Man 25 


ture writings are something more than Hebrew 
and Greek words, and that they are used with a 
great purpose, namely, to convey truth to men. 
He urges that men are bound to judge the trust- 
worthiness of the writings according as they real- 
ize the success with which these Scriptures have 
accomplished their purpose, and adds: “ Cer- 
tainly I can lay no claim to be heard here more 
than any other person. Yet will I say that any 
man whose labour and duty for several scores 
of years have included as their central point the 
- study of the means of making himself intelligible 
to the mass of men, is, by just so much, in a 
better position to judge what would be the form 
and methods of speech proper for the Mosaic 
writer to adopt, than the most perfect Hebraist 
as such, or the most consummate votary of 
natural sciences as such.” The critical specialist 
is only one of several who have to do with the 
Bible, and the average man has found the book to 
be more than literature. To him the voice of 
authority comes from other directions as well as 
from the student of the literary composition of 
the book. He desires to be fair. He desires to 
know the actual product of criticism, but he will 
cling to long-accepted views, confirmed by pre- 
cious experience, until convincing evidence leads 
him to see that the new is really better than the 
old. 


II 
THE BIBLE 


T has been said there are three classes of 
books: the book you read once, the book 
you read twice, and the book you read every 

year. But there is one book which remains in a 
class by itself, to which many thousands resort 
morning by morning, and evening by evening, for 
guidance and inspiration, for comfort and peace. 
Other books, the greatest among them, exhaust 
their message; but each generation returns to 
this book and finds it has more to say. Immanuel 
Kant wrote to a friend: “ You do well in that 
you base your peace and piety on the Gospels, 
for in the Gospels, in the Gospels alone, is the 
source of deep spiritual truths, after reason has 
measured out its whole territory in vain.” And 
he further quotes Goethe as saying: “Let the 
world progress as much as it likes; let all 
branches of human research develop to the very 
utmost ; nothing will take the place of the Bible.” 
Sir John Herschel wrote: “ All human discov- 
eries seem to be made only for the purpose of 
confirming more and more strongly the truths 
contained in the sacred Scriptures.” General 
Grant urged our people to “hold fast to the 
26 


The Bible 27 


Bible as the sheet anchor of our liberties,” add- 
ing: “‘ Write its precepts on your hearts and prac- 
tice them in your lives. To the influence of this 
book we are indebted for the progress made in 
true civilization, and to this we must look as 
our guide in the future.” 

To the Christian the explanation of this unique 
character of the Bible is not in the fact that it is 
the most splendid achievement in literature, not 
that it is the noblest and most sublime of all 
books; but it is in the fact that the Bible is the 
revelation of God. We will agree with Froude 
that the book of Job “ will be found at the last 
to tower above all the poetry of the world;” but 
we also agree with Coleridge when he says: “I 
know the Bible is inspired because it finds me at 
greater depths of my being than any other book.” 
Men say God has revealed Himself by His power 
and plan in nature, and by His providence in his- 
tory. He has revealed Himself in His Spirit in 
the life of the Church and of individual believers. 
He has inspired the books of devotion which 
quicken the spirit of consecration, and has illu- 
mined the thoughts of sage and seer which shine 
with abiding beauty and helpfulness. And all 
this is true; but no man has ever indicated the 
first truth which God has spoken in nature, in 
history, in literature or in experience, which He 
has not spoken in the Bible. Robertson Nicol 
says truly: “You will find the most beautiful 
thought ever suggested by the profoundest Chris- 


28 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


tian mind quietly folded in some word of Jesus, 
in some argument of an apostle.” 

It is the contention of Dr. Robertson Smith 
that “the Bible contains within itself a perfect 
picture of God’s gracious relations to man, and 
that we have no need to go outside of the Bible 
history to know anything of God and His saving 
will toward us, that the whole growth of the 
true religion up to its perfect fulness is set before 
us in the record of God’s dealings with Israel cul- 
minating in the manifestation of Jesus Christ. 
History has not taught us that there is anything 
in true religion to add to the New Testament. 
We still stand in the nineteenth century where 
Christ stood in the first, or rather Christ stands 
as high above us as He did above the disciples, 
the perfect Master, the supreme Head of the 
fellowship of all true religion.” With light 
streaming in on all sides upon the human soul, 
the fact that Dr. Smith’s statement stands un- 
challenged among evangelical Christians at the 
beginning of the twentieth century is of profound 
significance. We may not anticipate at this point 
the discussion of the development of the truth 
in the progressive unfolding of God’s revelation 
to men. Through the years it came slowly, in- 
spiring and explaining the evolution of man’s 
purer conceptions of spiritual life, until in Christ 
the revelation reaches that fulness which Dr. 
Smith attributes to it. As an earnest, honest 


The Bible 29 


student, he writes his judgment with increasing 
confidence. 

Occasionally some one asserts a decline in the 
influence of the Bible. On the contrary the last 
decade of the nineteenth century has witnessed 
a marvellous advance in the study of this book. 
In the twelve months terminating March 31st, 
1900, the total output of the British and Foreign 
Bible Society reached the amazing total of five 
millions and forty-seven thousand copies of Holy 
Writ, more than half a million in excess of the 
previous twelve months. But this society is only 
one of many. Never was the demand for the 
Bible as great as to-day. At the beginning of 
this century there are over four hundred versions 
of the Scriptures or some portion thereof, the 
number rising in the nineteenth century from a 
total of fifty-six. Every college of importance 
now gives the Bible a recognized place in its cur- 
riculum. It is in the full blaze of the world’s 
light, and sheds the brightest light known to men 
from its own sacred page. 

Wherever this Bible dominates the religious 
life of men and nations the best blessings have 
multiplied. It opens a fountain of healing for 
every human ill, strength for the weary spirit, 
divine sympathy for the sorrowing, precious com- 
fort for the bereaved, and a glorious hope of the 
life everlasting. It brings the salvation of God 
to sinful men through the atoning love of Jesus 


30 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


Christ. It came into the world and touched all 
its life with transforming power. It has replaced 
the art still reflected on the walls of Pompeii 
with the noblest conceptions of the master’s gen- 
ius. It found infanticide infamously universal, 
and has set the child in the very centre of the 
world’s life. It found slavery rendered intoler- 
able by the cruelty and impurity of the master, 
and not only lifted up the slave to freedom, but 
exalted the place of labour as honourable in all 
men. Where the very meaning of marriage was 
destroyed, it consecrated this holy institution as 
most honourable and blessed. Where the Bible 
has its place, righteousness is exalted as the 
mark of true character and the only measure of 
real success in human life, while the unselfish 
service of a Christ-like love is the sign of God’s 
fellowship with men. 

Such is the priceless character of the Bible. 
Nay, no adequate expression can be found to de- 
pict its value to our race. There are those who 
love it with every fibre of every heart string, and 
who are ready to devote their lives to the end 
that it may be known and read to the uttermost 
part of the earth, as the wisdom of God and the 
power of God unto salvation. It has been sub- 
jected to the fiery test of the crucible, but, like 
the burning bush that Moses saw, it cannot be 
consumed because Jehovah is in the midst of it. 
The divine life is its living spirit. “The words 


The Bible 31 


that I speak unto you,” said Christ, “they are 
spirit and they are life.” The light of a blessed 
immortality shines from its pages upon the way 
everlasting. The knowledge of it shall one day 
fill the earth as the waters cover the sea. 


III 


LITERARY CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE 


T Bible is literature. There is a cer- 
tain examination of literature which is 
called Criticism. It is not only right but 

necessary that the principles of Criticism be ap- 

plied to the writings contained in the Bible. C. 

M. Mead in Christ and Criticism, says: “ Gen- 

uine Criticism is nothing but the search after 

truth; and of this there cannot be too much.” 

There is a wide-spread prejudice against what 

is known as “The Higher Criticism,” but this 

prejudice must not be directed against the prin- 
ciples of Criticism, for they are necessary to all 
intelligent study of literature. If there have been 
critics who have abused the methods of sound 

Criticism and have been arrogant in assumptions 

which have not been justified by the facts, we 

must learn to discriminate between the legitimate 
and necessary Criticism, with its valid and valu- 
able results, and that extreme unwarranted claim 
of some destructive critics which many earnest 
critics repudiate. 

Prevalent usage of terms has made a distinc- 
tion between Lower Criticism and Higher Criti- 
cism. But as a matter of fact practically all 


32 


Literary Criticism of the Bible 33 


critics deal with the whole problem of Criticism, 
and the distinctions are not vital for the average 
man as he considers the work of the critics. 
Prof. H. C. King, in his Reconstruction in The- 
ology, gives a good popular definition in these 
words: “ Higher Criticism may be defined as a 
careful historical and literary study of a book to 
determine its unity, age, authorship, literary form 
and reliability.” In doing this, account is taken 
of the historical references contained in the writ- 
ing, its style, any citations made in it, quotations 
from it found elsewhere, the literary surround- 
ings, and linguistic characteristics. For instance, 
the student who knows the writings of Chaucer 
and Tennyson is able to say of any production 
of English whether it belongs in the earlier pe- 
riod or the later. The considerations just men- 
tioned will enable him to do this. The same 
principles may be applied to different writings in 
the Bible showing a different age for composition. 
Varieties of evidence point out important facts 
concerning the “origin, form and value” of the 
different writings. Therefore, in its purity, Criti- 
cism is an honest study about the facts which 
may be discovered which throw light upon these 
problems in the Scriptures. 

All such facts should be sought, without hesi- 
tation and without fear. They involve questions 
which cannot be evaded and should not be. Prin- 
cipal Fairbairn, in his book The Place of Christ 
in Modern Theology, says truly: “A more in- 


34 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


timate knowledge of Oriental man and nature, 
due to personal acquaintance with them, has quali- 
fied scholars the better to read and understand 
the Semitic mind. A more accurate knowledge 
of ancient versions, combined with a more scien- 
tific archeology, and a clearer insight into the 
intellectual tendencies and religious methods of 
the old world, especially in their relation to 
literary activity and composition, has enabled the 
student to apply new and more certain canons to 
all that concerns the formation of books and 
texts. The growth of skilled interpretation, ex- 
ercised and illustrated in many fields, has ac- 
customed men to the study of literature and his- 
tory together, showing how the literature lived 
through the people, and the people were affected 
by the literature; and so has trained men to read 
with larger eyes the books and peoples of the 
past.” Before the days of printing, copyists 
would often make additions, comments, insertions 
in the original text. This would be proved by 
the discovery of an earlier manuscript. Some- 
times this would be done ignorantly, sometimes 
deliberately. Criticism has detected many such 
facts, as well as apocryphal writings and pseudo- 
compositions. In many oriental and classical 
writings Criticism has accomplished very impor- 
tant results in this sifting process. 

Yet when all has been granted gladly to Criti- 
cism which is its due, it must be insisted that 
much of its work has been marked by certain 


Literary Criticism of the Bible 35 


features of unreliability which should lead the 
critics themselves to be very modest in announ- 
cing results. Prof. Briggs, in his book The 
Bible, The Church and The Reason makes this 
unwarranted claim for Criticism: ‘‘ You may be 
willing to take the Bible on the authority of your 
pastor or your parents, or your friends, or the 
Christian Church. But there are multitudes who 
cannot do this. They want to know by what au- 
thority the Church claims that the Bible is the 
Word of God. The Church has committed so 
many sins against truth and fact that it is neces- 
sary for us to know whether the Church is in 
error about the Bible, or whether it is right. 
How can we know this except by Criticism?” 

A fair answer to this contention is given by 
Prof. A. C. Zenos, in his book The Elements of 
The Higher Criticism, in which he says: “ That 
the reasoning in this paragraph is not conclusive 
or valid, may be demonstrated by reversing its 
point and noticing how applicable it is when thus 
reversed. For example, let us say ‘ You may be 
willing to receive the Bible on the authority of 
experts, specialists, scholars, higher critics, but 
there are multitudes who cannot do this; they 
want to know by what authority higher critics 
claim that the Bible is the Word of God. Higher 
Criticism has committed so many sins against 
truth and fact that it is necessary for us to know 
whether the Higher Criticism is in error about 
the Bible, or whether it is right. How can we 


36 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


know this except by inquiring of the Church, 
the guardian of the Bible, its history and na- 
ture?’ The fact is, neither this position, nor the 
position of Prof. Briggs, which is not a whit 
stronger than this, is tenable. The Bible com- 
mends itself, apart from Criticism or the author- 
ity of the Church, as a source of religious in- 
formation and inspiration. Criticism and the 
Church may increase or diminish the light in 
which the Bible is used, but they are not abso- 
lutely necessary, either singly or combined, to 
authenticate the Bible.” This is the fact of vital 
importance. While the Bible is literature, it is 
more than literature. Its unique place and au- 
thority, as noted in the preceding chapter, do not 
rest in its literary character alone. Criticism 
therefore is not of such supreme importance to 
the Bible as many critics would have us think. 
Furthermore it remains to note that many of 
the claims of the critics are not marked by that 
conclusiveness of evidence which one would ex- 
pect in view of their confident assertions. The 
precarious character of this study becomes evi- 
dent in the light of two recent discussions con- 
cerning other literature than the Scriptures. One 
of these is concerning the writings of Homer. 
The German scholar Frederick Augustus Wolf 
set forth the theory that Homer was not the epic 
poet of a literary age, like Virgil among the 
Romans, that he was really a minstrel who prob- 
ably composed only parts of the noble poems— 


Literary Criticism of the Bible 37 


the Iliad and Odyssey—from the popular ballads 
and tales of his time. Wolf held that the writ- 
ings attributed to Homer are simply compila- 
tions of these numerous songs gathered into their 
present form. 

This Wolfian theory has had violent op- 
ponents and enthusiastic supporters. The avy- 
erage man must look to the specialists for their 
judgment. Mr. Gladstone was acknowledged to 
be one of the greatest Homeric students of his 
time. While recognizing the value of Wolf’s 
emphasis upon the character of the material in its 
elemental forms, he urges that the internal evi- 
dence of the poems points to one author. He 
insists that the unity of tone and plan, and the 
unequalled splendour of poetic genius which per- 
vades the whole, refute the theory that the works 
attributed to Homer are merely the skillful patch- 
work of later compilers. John Stuart Blackie, 
in his Homer and The Iliad, says: “We who 
stand on the received text have the tradition of 
long centuries in our favour, and not one sub- 
stantial reason against us. Possession in literary 
as in civil affairs, is nine points of the law; and 
he who wishes to shake an old received docu- 
ment out of its consistency, must be prepared to 
bring something more weighty to bear against 
it than clever guesses and well-devised possi- 
bilities.’ Thus it becomes apparent that the 
average man must remain uncertain as to the 
Wolfian theory about Homer, and meanwhile he 


38 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


will continue to attribute to that great poet the 
writings which bear his name. 

Even more significant is the discussion about 
certain writings attributed to Thackeray, not pub- 
lished as his during his lifetime. In the month 
of May, 1899, the literary journal The Critic an- 
nounced a series of eight papers of “ hitherto 
uncollected” writings of various kinds from 
Thackeray’s pen, affirming that “this treasure 
trove has been collected and edited by the well- 
known Thackeray expert, Frederick S. Dickson. 
It is the result of years of research, and could 
only have been made by one possessing special 
knowledge.” In his first installment of these pa- 
pers Mr. Dickson acknowledges his obligations 
to Mr. M. H. Spielman, whom he declares to be 
the “ High Court of Appeals on these questions.” 
But in July The Critic published a letter from 
this same Mr. Spielman, who wrote: “I think 
it my duty to point out to you the absolutely un- 
trustworthy character of the papers” of Mr. 
Dickson. “In spite of your announcement that 
he is one of three or four persons familiar with 
Thackeray’s unidentified contributions to Punch, 
I beg leave to declare that Mr. Dickson is making 
only very infelicitous guesses at them.” 

Mr. Spielman then proceeds to establish his 
claim by showing that he had access to the pay- 
rolls of Punch and had verified the real writers of 
the articles. He insisted that “ out of ten pages ” 
of Mr. Dickson’s papers “more than four, con- 


Literary Criticism of the Bible 39 


taining seven gross blunders, are totally apocry- 
phal in character.” The Critic discontinued the 
publication of Mr. Dickson’s articles, and in an 
editorial entitled “ When Doctors Disagree,” said 
in part: “ An investigator writing at a distance 
from such first sources of information as the 
records in the office of Punch was not, of 
course, in a position to speak with any final au- 
thority concerning these unidentified contribu- 
tions.” But suppose we were to apply that state- 
ment to the theories of the critics about the 
Bible! They are many centuries away from 
their first sources. 

In the light of these two recent discussions 
no thoughtful man can feel very confident about 
accepting critical theories which are not thor- 
oughly established. When we turn to such an- 
cient writings as the Scriptures, it becomes ap- 
parent that if the critics do not agree, they can- 
not expect others to be zealous to follow. Not 
only so, but we are familiar in our own litera- 
ture with the fact that one man has produced 
such a variety of material as to upset many prin- 
ciples of Criticism when applied to those writings. 
For instance, no critic who might be given a 
complete set of the works of James Russell 
Lowell, all unknown to him, could consistently 
declare The Bigelow Papers and The Vision of 
Sir Launfal were written by the same man. But 
we know they were. Or if we took a historic 
drama of Shakespeare, where we know Beaumont 


40 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


entered into composite authorship with the great 
dramatist, what critic would confidently attempt 
the task of declaring the separate writings of 
each? Mr. Gladstone’s literary style at eighty 
was quite different from that which marked his 
writings at thirty. Criticism would hesitate to 
admit that, according to its principles, one man 
had written both products from his pen. It is 
not intended to under-rate the value of literary 
criticism. We have emphasized its rightful and 
necessary place in all study of literature. But it 
is a precarious science at best, and ought to be 
prosecuted with great caution by men who will 
be conservative in announcing their judgments to 
the world. 


IV 


A LESSON IN CONFIDENCE 


Church passes from an older view of the 

Bible to a new and different one, has 
been marked by dangers against which we need 
to guard. There is great danger that the advo- 
cate of the new will be led into extravagant re- 
action against the old. This tendency betrays the 
failure of its victims to realize that the main busi- 
ness of the new is not to destroy, but to fulfil. 
Then the traditionalist is in danger of not being 
open-minded toward any truth which may come 
to light. The ultra conservative is as harmful 
as the ultra radical. Both hinder the progress 
of truth. Therefore there is great need of pa- 
tience while earnest students are pushing their 
inquiries along the lines of research which will 
help to the final solution of the problem. The 
thinking world has just gone through such an 
experience, which is still so near us as to be 
fresh in the minds of many. During the nine- 
teenth century a conflict was waged in the realm 
of physical science because of its supposed con- 
tradictions of Bible teachings which touched upon 
its sphere. 


BK VERY transition time, during which the 


41 


42 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


There were three classes of people engaged in 
the discussion. First, some unchristian scien- 
tists; second, some unscientific Christians; and 
third, some scientific Christians. The solution of 
the problem was impossible by either the first or 
second of these classes. Each hindered the work 
as much as the other. They were dominated by 
prejudices and fears. On the one hand the new 
teachings in geology and biology were con- 
demned as the work of the devil, their propaga- 
tion was considered dangerous to the faith, and 
the minister who betrayed any sympathy with 
them was branded as a heretic. If the world was 
not made in days of twenty-four hours each, and 
if man had come to his physical estate by an evo- 
tutionary process, then the Bible must be given 
up and inspiration is an illusion. Thus many in- 
sisted not very long ago. On the other hand ex- 
tremists in the study of physical science were 
carried away by their new and partial discover- 
ies. Some declared that God had no longer a 
place in His world, that natural evolution ex- 
plained everything, that the Bible was largely 
legend and tradition, and that the new era of 
light had dawned upon a belated world. An 
agnostic philosophy was developed upon the basis 
of this naturalistic physical science, and with 
amusing assumptions of its sufficiency made its 
claims upon the allegiance of thinking men. 

But facts are stubborn things and they cut 
both ways like a two-edged sword. The third 


A Lesson in Confidence 43 | 


class, made up of scientific Christians, were busy 
studying facts. They neither allowed prejudice 
to develop fear regarding the safety of the old, 
nor undue enthusiasm regarding the importance 
of the new. They realized that some great facts 
were settled and would remain. Facts in Chris- 
tian experience, which had become universal to 
the Christian consciousness, they knew no dis- 
coveries in physical science could destroy. They 
were assured that new truth would accord with 
old truth. They saw that the great teaching of 
the Bible was not regarding the length of time 
consumed in creating the world, nor regarding 
the particular method adopted by the Creator 
in the creation of man; but was the teaching that 
God is the Creator of all things, whatever the 
method employed. Any new light upon the 
method would not affect the fact of God’s pres- 
ence and power in creation, as already familiar 
to the Christian thought. This reassuring po- 
sition was resisted by many who considered it 
dangerous, but the study of the facts continued, 
with the result that the extremists on both sides 
are no longer heeded. Science has taught us 
certain new interpretations of Scripture, and 
Scripture holds its vital essentials against the un- 
warranted assumptions of science in such in- 
stances “‘ falsely so called.” 

This episode is like unto others which have 
occurred in the past. It is now being repeated 
in the realm of Bible Criticism. The three classes 


44 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


are here also. The extreme critics are ration- 
alistic and destructive. They imagine they have 
forever destroyed the divine revelation of God 
and His thought for men. The extreme tra- 
ditionalist is narrowly conservative and fears that 
if the doctrine of inspiration should be modified, 
there would be nothing left of authority and 
truth. Neither of these will bring us the solution 
of the problem. A third class of Christian critics 
stands between these extremes. Some of them 
are more conservative, others more liberal; but 
all of them confidently assert allegiance to the 
great teachings of Scripture which are vital to 
Evangelical Christianity, and insist that what- 
ever modification of views may result from Criti- 
cism, nothing essential to true Christianity can 
fail of permanency. The extreme critic will be 
disappointed to discover that he has gone too far. 
The extreme traditionalist will be surprised to 
discover that truth is something larger and 
stronger than he had supposed, and the Church 
of Christ will move forward welcoming all the 
light the years may bring. 

Surely this lesson should not fail of earnest 
application on the part of all Christians. Men 
were as much alarmed about the doctrine of cre- 
ation as they now are about the doctrine of in- 
spiration. The question of authority was back of 
that as it is back of this. It is not to the point to 
say we are now facing a more serious problem. 
The principle is the same in both cases. If more 


A Lesson in Confidence 45 


vital truth be involved in the present discussion, 
the more certainly will the outcome be the clearer 
shining of such truth. We are far stronger to- 
day in our new interpretation of the Bible-teach- 
ing about creation than our fathers were, be- 
cause while the essential recognition of God as 
Creator is unchanged, the appreciation of His 
method has made luminous the fact of divine im- 
manence in the world as it was never understood 
or taught before. Just as surely, if a new view 
of inspiration should result from the evidence 
which may some day win recognition, as it will 
if it be valid, the outcome will be a more vital 
appreciation of God’s method of revealing truth 
to men, and a stronger faith in the eternal veri- 
ties which bind the immortal soul to the living 
Lord. 


V 


HONOUR TO HONOURABLE CRITICS 


Ti average man desires to be fair. This 
is not always easy. One may readily 
concede candour and honesty of pur- 

pose to a critic who is a rationalist and makes no 

claim to be a Christian. He looks upon the 

Scriptures much as the Christian looks upon the 

Koran or the Vedas. But it is more difficult to 

be fair to the critic who is an Evangelical Chris- 

tian and yet goes far in the direction of the views 
of the extreme critics who are avowed Unitarians 

or Agnostics. It is difficult to divide between a 

man’s general attitude toward the Word of God 

and his critical theories. But a very important 
duty rests upon the Christian Church at this time 
just at this point in the critical movement. It is 
necessary for us to be thoroughly fair to all 
classes of Christian critics. We may believe that 
certain Christian scholars betray in their writings 

a drift toward naturalism which makes their 

teachings dangerously akin to the destructive ra- 

tionalism of men like Kuenen; but so long as 
there can be no doubt of the attitude of these 
men toward the great fundamental truths of 

Christianity, we must recognize their sincerity of 

46 


Honour to Honourable Critics 47 


motive and honesty of purpose, and above all be 
assured that their allegiance to these fundamen- 
tals will hold them to such an attitude of mind 
and heart toward the critical problems as will 
lead them toward the truth, rather than away 
from it. 

In this class of men must be placed such names 
as those of Dr. Robertson Smith, Dr. George 
Adam Smith and Dr. Driver, of Great Britain, 
and Professors Briggs, Francis Brown, McGif- 
fert, and Dr. Henry Preserved Smith, of Amer- 
ica. A recent utterance of Professor G. A. Smith, 
at the Edinburgh Sabbath Morning Fellowship 
Union, is indicative of the faith of this group 
of critics. In that address Dr. Smith said: “ Bib- 
lical Criticism has been indulged in within the 
last generation with a vigour and a freedom that 
were never known before. And we have to ask 
ourselves, What is the loss of it, or what is the 
gain? One might answer this question by ex- 
amining the history we have, and especially of 
Europe, and noting how it has been the Bible, 
and the Bible alone, which has cleansed the social 
life, inspired new nations to independence, which 
has built the home, which has perfected the be- 
ginnings of education, which has brought health 
to art and literature, which has enlightened the 
ignorant, ennobled the humble, and given the 
lonely man power to stand alone for truth and 
justice, and which, above all, has inspired a 
power to every century, given it an energy anda 


48 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


hope to struggle for truth which nothing else 
could possibly have endowed it with. 

“That has been the work of the Bible. 
It is not an instrument that has not been 
tried. It has been tried during nineteen 
centuries of progress, and never once has it 
lost its edge during that time. The criti- 
cism of to-day is not directed to the historical 
trustworthiness of the Bible, so much as to its 
moral validity, and this subject gives rise to dif- 
ficulties and to doubts. We have to say the so- 
lution of this moral problem is to be found within 
the pages of the Bible itself. God has granted 
in His Sermon on the Mount that God’s revela- 
tion must be a progressive revelation. Do not let 
us do the Bible the childish injustice of judging 
it by things which the spirit of the Bible shows 
its great victory to be in outgrowing and de- 
feating them. Do not let us condemn the Bible 
for practices which we find its greatest prophets 
themselves condemning. Let us rather measure 
it by the divine unity of ethical purpose which 
runs through it from the first to last, which never 
fails through age after age, and which proves 
itself to be the work of God, the Father of our 
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. There is dif- 
ficulty about the question as to how far the mir- 
acle proved the Word divine. I would have you 
see that while our Lord wrought the miracle, he 
rebuked those who followed him for the miracle 


Honour to Honourable Critics 49 


only. It is the Word, and its power to give life 
to the soul, that is the miracle. 

“What is it that gives this Word its power? 
It is not the moral idea that it lays bare to us. It 
is not in the showing of the two worlds which 
expose the necessity of a moral choice between 
them and the warfare involved in that choice. 
But the divine essence of the Bible consists in 
this—the marvellous story, how it tells us that 
that moral warfare of ours is shared by God 
Himself, that the divine nature descended into 
that warfare, that it bears the agony of strife— 
nay, the shame and the curse of it !—all for man’s 
salvation. In the Old Testament, God is repre- 
sented not as judicial righteousness, but as 
righteousness militant and suffering. For our 
salvation He descends from heaven, and by His 
love and His pity redeemed us. That love and 
pity were vicarious. The human heart is scarcely 
capable of understanding the height and the 
depth of the task as undertaken by our Lord, by 
the divine and perfect love itself. 

“These are the prophecies in the Old Test- 
ament of the Incarnation that we read of 
in the New. That is the preparation for 
the appearance of the Son of God in our 
flesh, our weakness, tempted in all points 
as we are, bearing our sickness, carrying our sor- 
rows, and finally, as St. Peter tells us, bearing in 
His own Body our own sins upon the tree. Be- 


g0 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


cause the Bible alone of all books in the world has 
that story of divine love to tell, we know the Bible 
to be the Word of God. Not that it fits the older 
theories of inspiration, but that, independently of 
all humar theories of inspiration, it carries home 
to the hearts and the consciences and the souls of 
sinful men, that otherwise would remain in sin 
but for this strange and almost incredible story 
of God’s love, God’s sacrifice and agony for them. 
It therefore carries that story home to their hearts 
and souls, needing no proof for itself, appealing 
only in its own strength. That is why the Bible 
shall always be the indispensable force to man’s 
salvation, the one so unique and conspicuous, the 
great divine power for man’s salvation in the 
ministry of the Holy Spirit. Study your Bibles 
for this alone and believe in it because it gives to 
you this naked truth of God’s love.” 

This quotation is justified in its length by the 
importance of the occasion for its use here. It 
is a burning utterance from the soul of a man 
whose spiritual discernment of truth and power 
of consecrated life every man knows. He is the 
legitimate spokesman of the company of liberal 
Christian critics to whom reference has been 
made. Every one of the men mentioned, and 
others of their school, will heartily endorse every 
word of this utterance. The fact. is that one of 
our strongest grounds for hope is in these very 
men; for when such men, holding views of liter- 
ary Criticism which many cannot accept, still 


Honour to Honourable Critics 51 


stand upon such fundamental grounds of Chris- 
tian faith, no man need fear that the outcome of 
this movement will not be with full possession of 
every vital truth. It is Dr. Smith’s expectation 
that a new conception of inspiration will take the 
place of the old. Perhaps it may be so, but all 
that inspiration gives us now of eternal and sav- 
ing truth will still be ours. The fact is that after 
a man has been studying the extreme critics for 
a time, and turns to the writings of these Chris- 
tian men, he discovers a purpose to draw back 
from those extreme views and show the reason- 
ableness of a more moderate position. 

The student of Dr. McGiffert’s book, The 
Apostolic Age, who has studied nothing else 
of Criticism, is startled by much of it, and 
with reason. To many his method often 
seems vicious and his positions unjustified, 
but his honesty of purpose cannot be ques- 
tioned by any fair-minded man. When Dr. 
McGiffert says in his preface: “ My aim through- 
out has been positive and not negative, construc- 
tive and not destructive,” men must give him all 
the honest recognition possible for his own po- 
sition. And when in that same preface he places 
himself on record as convinced that “ Second 
Peter is the only really pseudonymous work in 
the New Testament,” all his various discussions 
of details must be considered in the light of such 
a general position. The writer cannot agree with 
the positions of these men in many particulars, 


g2 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


as will appear in the discussions that follow, but 
he knows them, he has learned to love and trust 
them, and urges with profound conviction of the 
vital importance of the position, that the Chris- 
tian Church think kindly of them and their work, 
without fear of any serious loss to the wholesome 
development of the truth in its changing forms. 

But there is another side to this subject, which 
is of equal importance, and one which the liberal 
critics have not sufficiently recognized. There is 
a school of Christian critics who are more con- 
servative in their attitude than that already men- 
tioned. These men have been as faithful stu- 
dents as any. They are such men as Professors 
W. J. Beecher, W. H. Green, A. C. Zenos, How- 
ard Osgood of America, and Professor Ramsay 
of England. Perhaps mention should be made 
of such men as Professors Bruce and Dods, of 
Scotland, as standing nearer this conservative 
element, than to the liberals. These men know 
the theories and the results of Criticism, but they 
do not see their way to go very far with the ex- 
treme critics. They recognize the true value of 
literary and historical Criticism as applied to the 
Bible, but they find too much assumption in so 
many of the theories to make it possible for them 
to give consent. They insist upon methods which 
shall be more scientific and less conjectural than 
many of the methods of the vast majority of the 
critics. They have not been honoured as they 
deserve to be by the radical men, 


Honour to Honourable Critics 53 


But when the average man comes to his 
inquiry concerning the whole subject, he is 
much impressed by the positions of these 
men, because, while they are open to con- 
viction where demonstration appears, they 
demand demonstration of a more convincing 
character than much that is now offered. Through 
the years there have been such men withstanding 
the extreme views of many critics. Men like 
Hengstenberg, Haevernick, Keil, DeWitt and 
Bissell. It is not fair to them simply to smile at 
their small numbers, for minorities have some- 
times won in the long run. It may yet be made 
manifest that these critics are holding the citadel. 
Let the Church be slow to accept too hastily the 
teachings of the leading critics until it has care- 
fully studied the reasons given by these more 
conservative men for not yielding much that is 
now claimed. The writer is sympathetic with 
the position of these more conservative critics. 
They have convinced him that much of the ex- 
treme teaching of the liberals will never have 
an abiding place in the thought of the Church. 
He is all the more anxious to have the liberals 
fully recognized, for he has no anxiety about the 
outcome when all the facts are measured for their 
real worth. Honour to whom honour is due! 


VI 


VARIOUS THEORIES ABOUT THE PENTATEUCH 


E Pentateuch has been the main battle 

{ ground in the critical discussion. The 

great subject of the Pentateuch is the 
establishment of the Hebrew theocracy. Its cen- 
tral point is the giving of the law at Sinai. All 
that goes before leads up to this, and that which 
comes after recounts the way in which Israel was 
schooled in the law until Canaan was reached. 
Through many centuries the Mosaic authorship 
of the Pentateuch was conceded by practically the 
unanimous voice of Hebrew and Christian 
scholarship. The exceptions were inconspicuous, 
and need not be considered, as they were not 
taken seriously in their own time. The critical 
study of the Scriptures had not begun. 

In the year 1651 the English deist, Thomas 
Hobbes, published his Leviathan, in which he 
assailed the Mosaic authorship. About the same 
time, Spinoza in Holland, and Richard Simon 
in France, advocated the same view with varia- 
tions. In the year 1707 Vitringa expressed the 
opinion that Moses collected and supplemented 
earlier writings in composing the book of 
Genesis. A few years later Dr. Reimarus elab- 

54 


Various Theories About the Pentateuch 55 


orated the same theory. The modern critical 
movement really took definite form in the year 
1753, when Dr. Jean Astruc, a French physician, 
published a book entitled Conjectures About the 
Original Memoirs which Moses Used in Com- 
posing the Book of Genesis. It is to be noted 
that Astruc considered Moses the author of the 
book. 


THE DOCUMENT THEORY 


Astruc argued that Moses compiled the book 
of Genesis from pre-existing materials because 
of the way the two names for God—Elohim and 
Jehovah—are used. Many Bible students are 
aware that there are different Hebrew names 
for God used in the text, two of them much more 
than the others. They are El—or Elohim, trans- 
lated God in the English, and Jah-veh, vocalized 
into Jehovah. There are sections in Genesis 
where now one, now another of these terms is 
used, and to such an extent as to suggest that the 
sections were written by different men, one of 
whom, at least, was familiar with but one of 
these names. Astruc conjectured that Moses 
had used twelve documents, two principal ones 
and ten others. 

This theory of Astruc was adopted by Prof. 
Eichhorn, of Goettingen, who, however, pruned 
off ten of the minor documents and confined his 
position to the advocacy of two. Some of his 
contemporaries, as Illgen and Gramberg, advo- 


56 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


cated three documents. The supposed writer who 
employs the name Elohim exclusively was called 
the Elohist, while the other was known as the 
Jehovist. It was further claimed that the parts 
of the Elohist document could be taken out of 
the narrative and that they made a complete 
record taken alone. The same thing was claimed, 
though with more hesitation, for the Jehovist 
document. A further ground for the theory re- 
garding different earlier materials is the fact 
that double narratives appear, as in the twofold 
accounts of the creation and of the flood. More- 
over it was urged that an evident diversity of 
style marks the different documents, that each 
has its characteristic ideas and expressions. 
As already stated, this theory was applied at 
first only to the book of Genesis, and did not con- 
flict with the idea of the Mosaic authoriship. It 
was soon discovered that this hypothesis could be 
applied to the remaining books of the Pentateuch. 
For the first time, as a consequence, the Mosaic 
authorship was brought into question. It was 
plausibly urged that if the entire Pentateuch was 
compiled from pre-existing materials, then the 
compilation must have been post-Mosaic, beause 
the materials included the records of the time of 
Moses. Let it be noted, in passing, that even a 
theory of later compilation does not, of neces- 
sity, make impossible the intelligent belief that 
Moses himself collected the materials for the 
book of Genesis, and composed substantially the 


Various Theories About the Pentateuch 57 


materials for the remaining books of the Penta- 
teuch. A documentary theory may be held which 
recognizes Moses as the substantial author of 
the books which have been identified with his 
name. 


THE FRAGMENT THEORY 


The document theory proved quite too con- 
servative for some of the critics. In 1815 Dr. 
Vater gave out the more startling theory that the 
Pentateuch consisted merely of a number of frag- 
ments. He was endorsed by Hartmann and 
others. They held that many sources were used 
in the compilation. All such headings as “ These 
are the generations of the heavens and of the 
earth,” “‘ This is the law of the trespass offer- 
ing,” “ These are the journeys of the Children of 
Israel,” are claimed to indicate different frag- 
ments strung together. Vater imagined a col- 
lection of laws made at the time of David and 
Solomon to have been the foundation of the 
whole; that this was the lost book found in the 
days of Josiah, its fragments being incorporated 
into the book of Deuteronomy. The rest of the 
Pentateuch he considered fragments of tradition, 
history and law collected into form between the 
reign of Josiah and the Babylonian exile. Even 
DeWette held this theory for a time, but re- 
turned to the earlier document theory. 

Concerning this fragment theory, Dr. Wm. 
H. Green says: “Admit the legitimacy of 


58 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


this disintegrating process, and there is no 
limit to which it may not be carried at the 
pleasure of the operator. Any book in the 
Bible, or out of it, could be sliced and 
splintered in the same way and by the same 
method of argument. Let a similarly min- 
ute and searching examination be instituted into 
the contents of any modern book. Let any one 
page be compared with any other, and every word 
and form of expression and grammatical con- 
struction and rhetorical figure in one that does 
not occur in the other be noted as difference of 
diction and style. Let every thought in one that 
has its counterpart in the other be paraded as 
parallel sections evidencing diversity of origin 
and authorship, and every thought which has not 
its counterpart in the other as establishing a di- 
versity in the ideas of the authors of the two 
pages respectively. Let every conclusion arrived 
at on one page that does not appear on the other 
argue different tendencies in the two writers, dif- 
ferent aims with which, and different influences 
under which they severally wrote; and nothing 
would be easier, if this method of proof be al- 
lowed, than to demonstrate that each successive 
page came from a different pen.” 


THE SUPPLEMENT THEORY 


As might have been expected, the fragment 
theory was altogether too violent and extreme 
for the majority of the critics. There followed 


Various Theories About the Pentateuch 59 


a reaction toward a closer union of the parts by 
Bleek, Tuch, DeWette, Knobel and others, who 
advocated what has come to be known as the 
Supplement Theory. This theory returns to the 
Elohist and Jehovist, but instead of making them 
authors of independent documents, it supposes 
the Elohist wrote first the part which forms the 
ground work of the entire Pentateuch. Later the 
Jehovist undertook to prepare an enlarged edi- 
tion of the older history, introducing sections of 
his own, using materials within reach, and ampli- 
fying where the need demanded. This theory 
had its difficulties. The great proof of the exis- 
tence of a distinct Jehovist document was in the 
evidence of a different style and thought. But 
this made it necessary that the Jehovist should re- 
tain the Elohistic document without changing it, 
else his own peculiarities would not be limited to 
his special contributions. But as a matter of fact 
Elohist passages contain the very phrases and 
words which are said to mark the Jehovist pas- 
sages. Again supposed Jehovist passages con- 
tained the characteristics elsewhere pronounced 
Elohistic. This is explained by saying the Je- 
hovist imitated the style of the Elohist. But how, 
then, can one be certain of what is distinctive 
authorship and what is imitation? 


THE CRYSTALLISATION THEORY 


The attempt to overcome objections to the 
theories already mentioned resulted in still an- 


60 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


other. Ewald, in 1843, opposed the fragment 
theory and proposed an hypothesis of crystal- 
lization. He increased the number of writers who 
supplemented the earlier material from one to 
several. He imagined the most ancient parts of 
the Pentateuch to consist of four fragments, 
around which the later additions grew. Then 
followed what he calls the Book of the Origins, 
after which came the third, fourth and fifth pro- 
phetic narrators, each adding his part, the last 
of whom reformed the whole into its present 
unity. This work included Joshua. Last of all 
the Deuteronomist wrote the book bearing his 
name. 


THE MODIFIED DOCUMENT THEORY 


Still a different theory was proposed by Dr. 
Hupfeld in 1853. He sought to modify the docu- 
ment theory by urging two points: First, that 
the Jehovist material was a separate document; 
and second, that the Elohist material consisted of 
two documents. Long before, a second Elohist 
had occasionally been suggested, and Hupfeld at- 
tributed to him those troublesome passages which 
appeared to combine characteristics of both the 
other writers. These three separate documents 
were put together by a fourth writer, who as 
redactor modified, combined and transposed ma- 
terial at his own pleasure. Any queer phenomena 
were quietly ascribed to the redactor, who is 
altogether the most convenient discovery or 


Various Theories About the Pentateuch 61 


invention yet proposed to solve critical prob- 
lems. 


THE DEVELOPMENT THEORY 


The historical analysis of Hupfeld was taken 
up by Graf who combined with it his own theory 
of reconstruction. He urged that Deuteronomy 
must be considered prior to the ritual law, or 
priest code, which was the work of Ezekiel, with 
additions by Ezra. Kuenen at first accepted Hup- 
feld’s analysis, but later adopted the develop- 
ment theory of Graf. He taught that the relig- 
ion of Israel was a gradual development from 
polytheism into monotheism, and a later spiritual 
system. Another champion of this theory is 
Julius Wellhausen, who is followed by many 
modern critics. It will not help the understand- 
ing of these theories to repeat here the various 
symbols by which these supposed writers and 
redactors have been designated by different 
scholars. They would only be confusing and 
are therefore omitted. Suffice it to say that each 
has a letter to designate him, as J for Jehovist, 
etc. 

It will be helpful, however, to specify the 
three codes to which the critics frequently refer, 
in dividing the legislation of the Pentateuch. 
First is the Code of the Covenant, which is brief, 
and is generally allowed to be Mosaic, namely 
Ex. xx-xxiii. Second is the Deuteronomic 
Code, consisting of the laws which are found in 


62 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


that book, not allowed to Moses, but probably to 
an age some seven or eight centuries later. Third, 
the Levitical or Priest Code, contained in the 
later chapters of Exodus, all of Leviticus and 
parts of Numbers. This code it is held began 
later than Moses, and was a gradual growth, 
not attaining its present proportions until the time 
of Ezra. Somewhere within the lines of the 
various theories thus briefly described the criti- 
cal discussions concerning the Pentateuch will be 
found. Any one desiring to see a concrete pre- 
sentation of the general ideas involved in these 
theories should examine Prof. E. C. Bissell’s little 
book entitled Genesis Printed in Colours. By 
selecting a different colour to represent each as- 
sumed document, gloss or redaction, Dr. Bissell 
gives the analysis as adopted by Kautzch and 
Socin. To the average man this “crazy quilt” 
of colours is bewildering to say the least. 

As the average man pauses to consider that 
this story of the various theories of the Pentateuch 
is an account of the actual product of the lead- 
ing critical scholars of their day, he is astonished 
to realize that it could be possible for such chang- 
ing opinions to be formed about the same ma- 
terial. He feels somewhat as Archdeacon Farrar 
expresses himself in his Hulsean Lectures re- 
garding the critics: ““ The schemes which have 
been proposed by rival critics with so much arro- 
gant confidence and mutual contempt have suc- 
ceeded to each other in such bewildering multi- 


Various Theories About the Pentateuch 63 


tudes, like waves rushing over waves, that we 
know not whether most to be astonished at their 
rapidity or to despise their evanescence!” Dean 
Church, in answering the question—What does 
Criticism say ?—makes the assertion: “Here it 
seems to me that while the questions have been 
innumerable, and the answers also, the crop of 
clear, certain, and convincing answers has been 
a singularly small one. Nothing seems to me 
more remarkable than the contrast in our time 
between the certainties of physical science, and 
the contradictory and uncertain results, the bar- 
renness, as a whole, of Criticism applied to the 
questions which most interest men.” 

It must be said there is general agreement 
among the critics regarding the composite char- 
acter of most of the Old Testament material. 
They hold to four lines of proof for their posi- 
tions. (1) The many unnecessary repetitions. 
But this feature is common to other literary pro- 
ductions of the time. (2) Frequent discrepancies 
and inconsistencies. Many, if not most of these 
alleged discrepancies, disappear before a reason- 
able consideration, as we shall attempt to show in 
specific cases. It is not claimed there are no 
discrepancies, but that they are relatively few, as 
compared with the claims of the critics. (3) 
Want of continuity and order in the narra- 
tive. But we cannot determine now how men 
should have written then. They may have had 
different ideas about literary methods from those 


64 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


of the schools of to-day. The shifting conditions 
of the journey justify the form of more or less 
disjointed sections in records which may have 
been afterwards put together. (4) Differences 
of style and conception. It is true especially in 
Genesis that we find these differences. But that 
only suggests that Moses had various material 
from which to set forth the history of the time 
previous to his own life. There is no such strik- 
ing variety of styie in the other four books of 
the Pentateuch or in Joshua. 

The earnest position of the critics is that 
we must take all these lines of evidence 
together, not selecting one at a time as 
insufficient. But when they are all taken 
together or singly, it does not appear to many 
conservative critics, nor to the average man, that 
the claim is proven that “these facts taken to- 
gether form an irresistible argument for the be- 
lief that the Hexateuch was compiled from a 
variety of sources.” Some additions and inser- 
tions doubtless occurred. Genesis indicates com- 
posite materials. But when we study the other 
books of the group, as we shall do in succeeding 
chapters, it will appear that there are reasons for 
declining to grant to the critics any such degree 
of compilation as is claimed by them. It is im- 
portant to realize that if any one of the theories 
given above be right, the others must be wrong 
in many features. The author of any one is as 
great a critic as the rest. Which is to be fol- 


Various Theories About the Pentateuch 65 


lowed? Their general agreement is only justi- 
fied by a far larger agreement in details than we 
can find. There must be more light before these 
theorists may fairly claim the confidence of aver- 
age men. 


VII 


WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC SCHOLARSHIP? 


HE foregoing considerations make this in- 
quiry pertinent. The general claim of 


the critic is that he is bringing for the 
first time a scientific study of the Bible. This is 
true of the methods, when they have not been 
abused. We are also told that nearly all the 
world’s greatest scholars are advocates and sup- 
porters of the Higher Criticism. But what makes 
a great scholar? Not inventive ingenuity in the- 
orizing, nor keen analytic power in itself. There 
have been times when the world’s greatest 
scholars have been followers of a particular school 
of philosophy which has dominated the thinking 
world for a generation. But the fact that a very 
few were against it, or that many were for it, did 
not save the whilom dominant philosophy. It 
lacked something essential to permanency. It is 
not enough to parade names. Somehow the aver- 
age man has felt that this movement had much in 
it which would not permanently remain as an 
abiding deposit of truth about the Bible. There 
has been a feeling that much of the critical theory 
was not truly scientific. 
Exact science makes a twofold demand. It 
66 


What Is Scientific Scholarship? 67 


demands that tradition shall give way to any fact 
which denies tradition, no matter what may be 
the preconceived view. Every honest student de- 
sires this. But science also demands that no 
mere theories shall be accepted so long as they 
lack actual demonstration. If it be a good work- 
ing hypothesis, let it be tested tentatively, but 
modestly. True science suffers in both these 
directions. But one reason men are inclined to 
cling to old views with unreasoning prejudice is 
the fact that so many new theories have been pro- 
mulgated with unscientific haste, and soon aban- 
doned for others. A study of the preceding chapter 
will illustrate this fact. The average man can- 
not quite understand why such great confidence 
is justified regarding theories which are confes- 
sedly only theories, especially when so many of 
the critics deal with the views of their fellows 
with such vigorous condemnation. One critic will 
assign a given passage to the Elohist while an- 
other positively assigns it to the Jehovist. Kuenen 
actually claims there have been no less than 
fifteen redactors editing and reediting the work! 
Then comes Wellhausen insisting on nineteen 
redactors ! 

Yet we are told these men reach their con- 
clusions by scientific processes! The critics 
admit the palpable unity of the Pentateuch as we 
now have it, but explain it by the statement that 
some later writer worked up the various parts 
into this unity. Yet when we ask as to the time 


68 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


when this was done, Stahelin fixes it at the time 
of Saul, DeWette, Knobel and Bleek at the time 
of Josiah, Kuenen at the end of the seventh cen- 
tury B. c., Ewald before the destruction of Je- 
rusalem, Hartmann, Bohlen and Wellhausen after 
the exile. And each of these great scholars tells 
us he reaches his conclusions by strictly scientific 
processes! In the face of such lack of harmony, 
which almost seems a hopeless disagreement, the 
average man cannot but realize that too much un- 
certainty marks this work of the specialists to 
justify him in following them with confidence 
very far. 

To indulge the “critical imagination” is not 
scientific scholarship, and yet so notable a critic 
as Dr. Cheyne, of Oxford, admits that this is 
done. In his Jewish Religious Life After the 
Exile he says: “ Let no one indulge in a cheap 
sarcasm on imaginative criticism. These intui- 
tions are not purely accidental. They spring from 
sympathy with an author, and a sense of what 
he can and what he cannot have said.” The dif- 
ficulty just here, however, is that when a man 
decides, as a result of his critical imagination 
what a man can have said, or cannot have said 
twenty-six or twenty-seven centuries ago, an- 
other man applies his critical imagination to the 
same material and arrives at an opposite conclu- 
sion. That is to say they have both been indulg- 
ing in some ingenious guessing. If uncertainties 
arise about the ancient narratives, surely there 


What Is Scientific Scholarship? 69 


are also grave uncertainties marking the modern 
conjectures of the critics regarding them! 

Prof. L. J. Evans, the writer’s honoured 
teacher, realized the danger at this point, 
and sought to guard against it thus: “I do 
not claim that all movement has been prog- 
ress, or that every find has been a gain. 
I am well aware that in Bibilcal science, 
as in every science, there are rash _ specula- 
tions, unproved hypotheses, wild and dangerous 
vagaries. Some corners of the field are full of 
will-o-the-wisps, illusive, unsubstantial, unsafe, 
gleaming, I fear, with a light that is not from 
heaven. I have nothing to say in behalf of a bald, 
agnostic, materialistic naturalism, or of an arbi- 
trary, capricious rationalism, which, with a priori 
dogmatism, denies the supernatural, belittles or ex- 
punges sin and salvation, eliminates out of history 
God’s revelation of himself, evaporates out of the 
Bible its pneumatic inspiration, chops up its con- 
tents into lifeless fragments, and sweeps away 
book after book into the abyss of legend and 
myth. But on the other hand, there are conclu- 
sions in this field which all whose judgment is 
worth anything are agreed in regarding as sub- 
stantially established. We must reckon with 
these facts. We must assign them their true 
value.” 

Would that this reverent Christian scholar 
had been spared to point the way of light 
more fully, bringing out worthy conclusions of 


7° Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


critical study, and warning against the destructive 
work which he so brilliantly described! In the 
spirit of Dr. Evans, Prof. King asserts that “ most 
important of all, a clear line must be drawn be- 
tween the results of a truly scientific inductive 
literary and historical inquiry, and results reached 
because of an a priori antisupernaturalistic point 
of view. The latter cannot be called critical re- 
sults.” No one can question that the inductive 
method must win. The difficulty has been that 
many critics, assuming to use the inductive 
method, have not held to it. Equally necessary 
is it that those who do not follow the critics 
should show why they cannot do so, not by whole- 
sale condemnation, but setting forth their reasons 
by this same inductive method, resting in the 
facts presented for their justification. 

Our inquiry may well be applied to another 
phase of the problem. The Scripture record 
sometimes differs from other contemporaneous 
history. From a scientific point of view which is 
to be trusted? Some have assumed that when 
Scripture does not agree with other history, 
Scripture is wrong. But why? Perhaps the 
other records are erroneous. Note the opinion of 
competent scholars upon this important subject. 
Prof. Francis Brown says: “ The one great dis- 
tinctive feature of the literary monuments of the 
Hebrews is that they were informed by a spirit 
to which the inscriptions of Nineveh and Babylon 
are utter strangers. There is a truth of spiritual 


What Is Scientific Scholarship? 71 


conception, a loftiness of spiritual tone, a convic- 
tion of unseen realities, a confident reliance upon 
an invisible but all-controlling power, a humble 
worship in the presence of the supreme majesty, 
a peace in union and communion with the one 
and only God, and the vigorous germs of an 
ethics reflecting his will, which make an infinite 
gap between the Hebrew and his brother Semite 
beyond the river, that all likeness of literary form 
does not begin to span.” 

Dr. Wm. R. Harper, in speaking of the 
Assyrian and Babylonian writings as com- 
pared with the Hebrew Scriptures, says: 
“We compare these various accounts, psalms 
and historical narratives, and find in one a 
something which seizes hold of us, moves us 
powerfully, elevates us, inspires us. We look for 
this same element in the other, but it is wholly 
lacking. Instead, there is a dulness, a flatness, 
an insipidity, which disappoints, and at times al- 
most disgusts. Why this difference? There is 
but one possible answer. This writing, or series 
of writings. is human, only human. The other 
is human, to be sure, but also divine. The evi- 
dence is direct; it is absolutely conclusive and 
must be convincing.” 

In harmony with this important testimony Dr. 
Wm. Hayes Ward says: “ The Assyrian records 
are not infallible. Not to speak of occasional in- 
tentional falsehoods, as when one king assumes 
a credit that belongs to a predecessor, or the 


72 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


misinterpretation of facts to enhance his power, 
such as the description as a victory of what was 
really a defeat, as shown by the fact that the 
boasted victory was not followed up; it is true 
that the Assyrian scribes were likely to fall into 
easy grooves in their descriptions. Thus when 
a dozen kings of the Mediteranean coast are de- 
clared to have given tribute in a certain year to a 
certain king, and ten years afterwards he makes 
another raid in the same direction, and receives 
tribute from the very same kings, not one of 
whom has died, we may be confident that the 
names are repeated from an old list and are no 
longer authentic. This is the chief source of 
error.” 

In the light of such competent testimony 
it immediately becomes evident, not only that the 
Hebrew records are to be counted more trust- 
worthy than other contemporaneous records, but 
also that these records of Scripture have a face 
value which has often been denied to them. Many 
of the critics ignore quite freely the prima facie 
evidence of authorship in most of the books which 
distinctly affirm much that leads to a legitimate 
inference concerning the persons who had much 
to do with their composition. But if these state- 
ments be true as to the superior reliability of the 
writings, in view of the spirit which dominates 
them, then it must be conceded to be scientific to 
demand a greater consideration for this evidence 
than has been given it from certain quarters. 


Vill 


FACTS FROM THE MONUMENTS 


a4 NE by one,” says Professor Sayce of 
O Oxford, “ the narratives of the Old 
Testament, upon which the over 
subtle anaylsis of modern Criticism had cast sus- 
picion and doubt, are being vindicated by the 
progress of Oriental research.” For many years 
one of the most confident assumptions of the 
critics was that the Israelites and the surround- 
ing people were ignorant of the art of writing 
books at the time of the conquest of Canaan and 
during the age of the Judges. They supposed 
the literary period of Israel to begin with Samuel. 
The oldest inscription yet discovered in the 
Pheenician alphabet is fixed at the time of the 
Moabite king Mesha, the contemporary of Ahab. 
The critics asked why no older inscriptions had 
been found, if the art of writing had been known 
centuries earlier. 

Within recent years the archeologist has 
given the answer. A_ single blow of the 
excavator’s pick has shattered some former 
ingenious conclusions of the critics. In the year 
1887-8 a number of cuneiform tablets were taken 
from the ruins of a city of ancient Egypt, the site 


73 


74 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


of which is now known as Tel el Amarna. They 
consist of letters and dispatches sent to the Egyp- 
tian court by the kings of Babylonia, Assyria and 
Syria, and the Egyptian governors and vassal 
princes in the subject province of Palestine. 
They are not inscribed upon papyrus, or written 
in forms of the Phcenician alphabet, but are en- 
trusted to more enduring tablets of clay, written 
in the script and language of Babylonia which 
proves to have been, at that time, the common 
language of diplomacy, but disused in Palestine 
at a later day. 

This most important discovery proves a wide- 
spread literary activity and a considerable educa- 
tional system through all those eastern countries, 
running back to the time of Abraham. The 
most interesting of the letters from Palestine 
are from a certain Ebed Tob, the governor of 
Jerusalem. He was not governor by appointment 
of the king of Egypt, but an ally who paid 
tribute. He speaks of “the city of the mountain 
of Salem.” The word “ Uru” signified city, so 
that Urusalem is the city of Salem, identical with 
Jerusalem. This Ebed Tob speaks of himself as 
being “a priest of the most high God.” We turn 
to Genesis xiv, and read the account of Mel- 
chizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high 
God, and identify this description with that of 
the tablets, which carry us back centuries before 
the time of Moses. Moreover the “ written 
bricks ” confirm the account in that same chapter 


Facts From the Monuments 75 


of Genesis, of the incursion of Chedorlaomer, a 
Babylonian prince. Let us not forget that Moses 
was “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyp- 
tians.” 

But the most remarkable coincidences in the 
history of these discoveries occurred in the 
year 1892. Among the letters of the Tel el 
Amarna tablets are two that were written by 
governors of the city of Lachish, one of whom 
was Zimrida. One of the letters from the king 
of Jerusalem conveys the information that Zim- 
rida was murdered at Lachish by the servants of 
the Egyptian king. In 1890 Dr. Flinders Petrie 
was excavating in Southern Palestine, at a lofty 
mound known as Tel el Hesy. From various in- 
dications he suspected that he had identified this 
very city of Lachish. In 1892 the work was con- 
tinued by Mr. Bliss of Beirut. Not only did he 
fully identify the ancient Amorite city, but he 
found tablets exactly like those of Tel el Amarna, 
and upon them this very name of Zimrida occurs 
twice. Scarcely have the letters from upper 
Egypt been translated, when their counterparts 
in Southern Palestine come to the light, and the 
two parts of a correspondence which took place 
before the Exodus are joined together. 

The result of this recent discovery is conclu- 
sive evidence that the land of Canaan was in- 
habited by people who were by no means the un- 
lettered tribes imagined by the critics. One of 
their cities was named Kirjath Sepher, which 


76 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


means “ the city of books,” and indicates libraries 
in Canaan, as there were in Babylonia. In the 
song of Deborah and Barak we read—Judges, 
v:14—that “out of Zebulon came down they 
that handle the pen of the ready writer.” This is 
clearly the Hebrew, but, on the supposition that 
there were no ready writers, various interpreta- 
tions were offered to explain the expression. But 
the original text is now most clearly vindicated. 
Moreover the tablets show that Canaan before the 
Exodus was the great highway between the 
Mediterranean Sea and the eastern centres of 
commerce. Canaan paid to Egypt an annual land 
tax which was assessed according to surveys of 
the Egyptian Government. The enlightened and 
warlike Amorites and Hittites were there, and 
many of the cities mentioned in the Scriptures are 
also mentioned on the tablets, such as Salem, 
Joppa, Gaza, Kishon, Ekron and others. Prof. 
Erman says: “ There was hardly anything which 
the Egypt of the eighteenth and nineteenth dy- 
nasties had not obtained from Syria. The culture 
of the Syrians must therefore have been very 
highly advanced to have obtained such a con- 
quest.” 

Moreover let it be remembered that the 
conquest of Canaan by Israel was only partial 
even until the time of David. We know also how 
Israel grew into intimate relations with the peo- 
ple of the land, and whatever else they received 
of a hurtful influence, we cannot doubt that they 


Facts From the Monuments 77 


’ 


felt the touch of their intellectual development 
and literary activity. Such was the literary at- 
mosphere that pervaded the age of Moses. It 
was the golden age of literature in the history of 
the ancient East. Thus what was for many years 
one of the strongest assumptions of the critics 
against the Mosaic authorship is completely an- 
nihilated. 

The monuments have corroborated the Penta- 
teuch in other ways. We have noted that some- 
times their testimony is not trustworthy, and if 
it be contrary to Scripture, it cannot lend strength 
to the study; but when two accounts agree, the 
testimony of each to the other is most valuable. 
In the Egyptian records it is significant to note 
that it is the pre-Mosaic, rather than the post- 
Mosaic records which are confirmed and illus- 
trated. A few years ago it was argued quite 
confidently that the Egyptology of the Pentateuch 
was so full of errors as to have made it impos- 
sible for Moses to have written it. Bohlen es- 
pecially urged this view. We shall consider this 
point more particularly in discussing the book 
of Exodus; but it may be said here that a dead 
and buried Egypt, of which Herodotus never 
knew, has uncovered her sepulchres and brought 
new light to our problem. 

We have the testimony of Rawlinson, in 
his Historical Illustrations of the Old Test- 
ament, that “in the entire Mosaic descrip- 
tion of ancient Egypt there is not a single 


78 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


feature which is out of harmony with what 
we know of the Egypt of this remote period 
from other sources. Dr. Brugsch Bey, in May, 
1890, wrote an article on “ Joseph in Egypt” in 
the Deutsche Rundschau. It was suggested by 
the discovery in the previous year of a stone at 
Luxor by Wilbour, which stone mentions the 
seven years of want, and the attempt of one Chit- 
het to banish the calamity. Brugsch testifies to 
the historical correctness of the story as given in 
Genesis, identifying many names and places. He 
says the evidence is so conclusive that you could 
believe the writer of the story of Joseph “ read his 
statements concerning the affairs of ancient Egypt 
from the very monuments themselves.” More- 
over let it be noted well that the features of the 
civilization pictured by the book of Genesis are 
not borrowed from the period of the Kings of 
Israel or of the Babylonian exile; but they belong 
to the age of the patriarchs themselves. 

The monuments have corroborated the records 
in Genesis in other particulars. An Akkadian 
record of the flood has come to light, which is 
strikingly in accord with that in Genesis. It is 
especially notable that this account, like that in 
Genesis, has a repetition of the story. Authori- 
ties agree that this record originated about the 
year 2000 B. c., or five hundred years before 
Moses. The Babylonian record is a simple con- 
tinuous narrative which follows the biblical order. 
The argument that Moses could not have written 


Facts From the Monuments 79 


Genesis in its present form has pointed to the two- 
fold account of the flood as one of the proofs of 
composite authorship. But since just such a 
double narrative existed five hundred years before 
Moses, and since we have seen how widespread 
Babylonian literary knowledge was, it is scarcely 
possible to satisfy the average man that Moses 
might not have used just such a record himself. 

One more instance may be selected for mention. 
It relates to the discovery of Ur of The Chaldees. 
The Bible student had long been told to find Ur 
at Oorfah, six hundred miles away, entirely be- 
yond the land of Chaldea. But the Bible still 
taught that Ur was in Chaldea. It was over- 
looked because modern scholars forgot that the 
Persian Gulf has been filled up by the River Eu- 
phrates through the centuries, and the ancient 
city, which was on its coast, is now far inland. 
The geographers looked in the wrong place, but 
the discoveries of Lenormant and Smith have 
identified Mugheir as the site of the home of 
Terah and Abraham. The assumptions of the 
scholars, based on insufficient conjectures, were 
wrong. The statements of Scripture, based on 
the facts, were accurate and correct. Thus do 
the facts continually as they come to light con- 
firm the historicity and reliability of the Scrip- 
tures. The student of God’s providence in his- 
tory cannot but be impressed by the fact that the 
records of the monuments are brought to light 
just at a time when we are prepared by scientific 


80 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


knowledge to understand them. In an earlier age 
they would have been wasted. The more light 
they bring to bear upon the Scriptures the more 
luminous do the sacred records shine. 


IX 


THE HISTORIC MOSES 


fo HE reader has noted in previous chapters 


intimations that the critical problem in- 
volves other than literary elements. 
Historical and theological arguments also have 
place. It is argued that the legislation contained 
in the Pentateuch is too elaborate when we con- 
sider the religious ideas which prevailed in a 
much later time. It is argued the legislation must 
have been a growth, and the same law of develop- 
ment which marks all other religions must have 
obtained in the growth of the Hebrew people. 
Hence nothing more than the beginnings of the 
Hebrew legislation could date back as far as 
Moses. Indeed Professor Briggs, in his Jnau- 
gural Address, declares “it may be regarded as 
the certain result of the science of the higher 
criticism that Moses did not write the Penta- 
teuch.” 
It is intended to approach the subject in 
a somewhat closer study by considering each 
of the six books included in the Hexateuch. But 
before entering upon this examination, it is im- 
portant to consider the significance of the effort 
to eliminate Moses from the Pentateuch. Not all 
81 


82 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


the critics deny an important place to Moses in 
connection with what they severally consider 
early material, but the dominant position in the 
critical school leaves very little of the Moses 
whose work has been considered for centuries the 
substantial authorship of the Pentateuch. There 
may be many who will say it matters very little 
whether Moses wrote that part of the Bible 
which is connected with his name. But when the 
far-reaching character of much of the destructive 
criticism is understood, it becomes a matter of 
very earnest inquiry as to how far Moses can be 
ignored. 

The great significance to the discussion is not 
found in the mere question as to who may have 
written the records of the legislation and estab- 
lishment of Israel in the Theocracy. But it is 
found in the question as to whether such a theoc- 
racy was established by Moses in its essential 
features in that early day, or was gradually de- 
veloped through centuries. This is the most vital 
problem in the discussion of the critical move- 
ment in Old Testament territory. We are told 
the writings of the Pentateuch are referred to 
Moses all through the Bible, just as the Psalms 
are referred to David. This of course is a familiar 
fact; but when we are assured that we have no 
more ground for identifying Moses with the Pen- 
tateuch than we have for identifying David 
with the Psalms, we must beg leave to demur. 

The substantial Mosaic authorship of the Pen- 


The Historic Moses 83 


tateuch, as involving the substantial founding of 
the theocracy by Moses, is of far greater impor- 
tance than the Davidic authorship of the Psalms, 
or the authorship of any other portion of the Old 
Testament. The Pentateuch presents a record 
of events involving the giving of the laws and 
institutions of Israel from the hand of God 
through Moses. The naturalistic and rationalis- 
tic theories of many of the critics cut the very 
heart out of the Pentateuch as an inspired record 
of the covenant relation established at Sinai by 
the living God with His chosen people. We do 
not urge that the Pentateuch in its present form 
must have come from the hand of Moses. The 
writer believes the material of Genesis is largely 
a compilation which may have been gathered to- 
gether by Moses, and that the essential features 
of the remaining four books of the Pentateuch 
must be conceded to have been Mosaic rather than 
post-Mosaic. 

In the succeeding chapters the objections 
to the Mosaic authorship will be noted and 
answered, but at this time it is desired to call 
attention to certain general facts which justify 
the conviction that Moses will remain as the 
recognized author of the material which consti- 
tutes the bulk of the Pentateuch. Could it be 
proved that Moses was not the author of this 
material, its value would not be lost, but it would 
be greatly diminished in the writer’s judgment. 
But the progress of the critical movement has 


84 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


failed to satisfy the vast majority of Bible readers 
that Moses was not the historic figure he is set 
forth in the Bible to be. Whatever may be the 
outcome of other questions of authorship, all of 
which are secondary to this, it is confidently be- 
lieved that a return to a larger recognition of 
Moses will ultimately mark the critical move- 
ment. 

On its face the Pentateuch carries a clear pre- 
sumption in favour of the Mosaic authorship. 
There is the direct testimony of the book to this 
effect in Ex. xvii:14; and xxiv:3-7; Num. 
XXxili : I-2; Deut. xvii: 18-19; mention of written 
blessings and curses in Deut. xxvii and xxx, and 
Deut. xxxi: 9-13. Almost on entering the wilder- 
ness the Hebrew lawgiver received a divine order 
to write in the book. On reaching Sinai he is dis- 
covered again writing in the Book of the Cove- 
nant. As the wanderings in the wilderness neared 
their termination, he is reported as having pre- 
pared a written record of the halting places in 
the march. And just before he dies he is once 
more writing “this book of the law.” Prima 
facie evidence could not be more conclusive than 
this. A remarkable recognition of this fact is 
given by no less a critic than Kuenen, who writes: 
“Tt is not only the superscriptions that assign 
the laws to Moses and locate them in the desert, 
but the form of the legislation likewise accords 
with this determination and place. Now this may 
be explained in two ways: either the laws really 


The Historic Moses 85 


come from Moses and the desert, or they are 
merely put into his mouth, and the desert and so 
forth belong to their literary form and present- 
ment.” Many critics choose the latter alterna- 
tive. But some conservative critics choose the 
former, and their reasons for so doing will be 
given in the following chapters. Moreover the 
Pentateuch breathes that potent spirit of a living 
contemporaneous history which points to the 
writing of the substance of its material by one 
who was an eye-witness and participant at the 
time. 

The historic Moses is necessary to the whole 
teaching of the Scripture concerning the historic 
Israel. According to this teaching these people 
suddenly took their place among the settled na- 
tions and entered upon that conspicuous and 
unique racial development which has continued 
even to this day. While there were affinities in 
some points with contiguous nations, their whole 
system is set forth as sharply separated by the 
grandeur of its religious monotheism, and by its 
complex social and civil organization, from that 
of all other nations. Their code of laws was so 
penetrating as to impress its indelible peculiari- 
ties upon the race, and to endow it with a potency 
and perpetuity of national life, in the face of 
terrific counter influences, to which history fur- 
nishes no parallel. Such an effect demands a 
cause; and that cause is the living system known 
as Mosaism. When the critics tell us the record 


86 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


is not true to the facts, and that they have dis- 
covered how impossible it was for Israel to do 
as the Pentateuch records, then the average man 
demands conclusive evidence to substantiate their 
claims. We shall examine these claims, attempt- 
ing to measure them fairly, and show why they 
fail to eliminate Moses from his long-recognized 
place as the founder of the Hebrew theocracy. 

Another general fact to be mentioned here is 
that the older parts of the Old Testament witness 
to the previous existence of the Pentateuch by 
striking references to passages in the same. 
Often there are verbal coincidences of expres- 
sion so accurate as to indicate a written antece- 
dent rather than an oral tradition. A very help- 
ful study of this subject is found in Hengsten- 
berg’s Authenticity of the Pentateuch. The 
book of Joshua is so full of these references that 
it was necessary to include it with the Pentateuch 
in the theories of later authorship. In the book 
of Judges the refusal of Gideon to receive the 
crown of Israel indicates a knowledge of the 
Mosaic law upon the subject. The same evidence 
appears in Samuel’s unwillingness to choose a 
king. 

One main argument of the critics against the 
existence of the laws in the earlier age is the 
fact that so many violations of them occurred. 
But Bleek himself, in his Jntroduction, is candid 
enough to admit that the fact that the laws were 
not obeyed is not sufficient proof that they did 


The Historic Moses 87 


not exist. The same record tells us of the law 
and of its violation. In the earlier prophets 
Isaiah, Micah, Amos, Hosea, there are continual 
references to the Pentateuch. In fact the only 
natural explanation of the divine authority which 
the nation conceded to the prophetic message is 
the fact that Israel knew the law upon which the 
prophet stood as his sanction and vindication as 
God’s messenger. In the New Testament the 
teachings of Christ and especially the whole argu- 
ment of the Epistle to the Hebrews carry a tre- 
mendous assumption in favour of the actual work 
of the historic Moses as set forth in the sacred 
record. 


x 


THE BOOK OF GENESIS 


of each of the six books of the Hexateuch 

not only to consider in more detail the dis- 
cussion regarding the historic Moses, but also to 
give the reader a close view of the features which 
mark the work of Bible Criticism. It is of vital 
importance to remember that the Bible record is 
only concerned with the history of man, his crea- 
tion and development, in so far as it is related 
to the story of God’s plan and work in redemp- 
tion. The admirable statement of the West- 
minster Confession is—“ The light of nature and 
the works of creation and providence are not 
sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of 
His will which is necessary unto salvation.” There- 
fore we have the revelation of that divine will 
and the record of God’s dealings with men in 
connection with the bestowment of this saving 
truth. The purpose to accomplish this result at 
once explains the fact that all matters external 
are only touched upon as they bear some relation 
to this history of man’s redemption, and also ex- 
plains the marvellous “ consent of all the parts ” 
from Genesis to Revelation. This manifest pur- 

88 


[ is proposed to give a special examination 


The Book of Genesis 89 


pose is the key to the unity and design of the 
Pentateuch, and explains the character of its 
construction. So also is each book explained in 
its relation to the whole. In the light of this 
purpose it is manifest that the book of Genesis 
is intended to reveal the unfolding of the divine 
plan up to the time of Moses. 

It is altogether reasonable to believe that 
Moses used a variety of material in the composi- 
tion of the book of Genesis, material which came 
from various sources. But there is such evident 
coherency in the general plan of the book that 
the average man is constrained to believe this 
plan determined its character from the very be- 
ginning. The plan is seen in the recurrence of 
the formula—* These are the generations.” Ten 
times we have this expression, holding us to a 
special line of descent, according to the divine 
selection. A glance at the following table will 
show the significance of this plan. 


I: 1-II: 3. General account of the creation. 

II: 4-IV: 26. The generations of the heavens and the 
earth. 

V: 1-VI: 8. The generations of Adam. 

VI: 9-IX: 29. The generations of Noah. 

X: 1-XI: 9. The generations of the sons of Noah. 

XI: 10-26. The generations of Shem. 

XI: 27-X XV: 11. The generations of Terah. 

XXYV: 12-18. The generations of Ishmael. 

XXV: 190-XXXV: 29. The generations of Isaac. 

XXXVI: 1-XXXVII: 1. The generations of Esau. 

XXXVII: 2-L. 26. The generations of Jacob. 


g0 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


By a brief analysis of this table we discover 
some instructive facts. The initial chapter gives 
a general account of the creation. The second 
chapter is generally declared by the critics to be 
a second account of the creation, but, considered 
in the light of the general plan, that is not an 
accurate statement. Evidently the purpose of 
this chapter is to show that out of all the creation 
we have especially to do with man. Therefore 
only so much of the general account is repeated 
as is involved in a more detailed statement con- 
cerning the creation of man. There is a marked 
difference of style in the two accounts, but the 
record is consistent with the plan to narrow down 
the story to man. So from Adam to Noah the 
main purpose is to show how the institution of 
salvation was made necessary by the fall and 
corruption of the race. In the tenth chapter the 
writer pauses to incorporate that remarkable 
ethnological register, which it is reasonable to 
suppose was gathered from various materials. 

When we come to Terah, we note with surprise 
the absence of the name of Abraham in our table. 
Had that table been prepared long after the time 
of Moses, it is morally certain that the name of 
Abraham would have been there. The laws of 
literary criticism point to this unexpected feature 
as the surer evidence of authenticity. Note fur- 
ther how Ishmael is dismissed with six verses, 
because Isaac is in the chosen line of descent. 
Then only one chapter is given to Esau, while full 


The Book of Genesis 9! 


accounts are devoted to Jacob and his family as 
the seed of the coming nation. Thus the plan 
draws the reader to the time of Moses. Why 
should he not have been one, and the most im- 
portant one of the writers of Genesis? The fact 
is clear that the book, as we now have it, was 
written to fit into the account of the Exodus, and 
that it looked forward from the time that Canaan 
was promised to Abraham, past the thralldom of 
Egypt, to the time when that promise should be 
fulfilled. 

In a former chapter we have noted that the 
Babylonian account of the flood is one continuous 
narrative, with all its repetitions, existing long 
before the time of Moses. We have also quoted 
Dr. Brugsch Bey in his testimony to the un- 
broken continuity of the story of Joseph. When 
we note these evidences of coherency and unity 
in the book, we are constrained to question the 
conclusiveness of theories about a variety of frag- 
mentary materials. Moreover the critics assume 
a literary renaissance of the restoration period 
during which they think much of this work was 
put into its final form. Yet Gesenius declares 
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther and Chronicles to be in- 
ferior literary work, as compared with the Pen- 
tateuch. Moses was learned in the wisdom of the 
Egyptians. 

In urging a later date for Genesis, the 
critics point to passages which seem to pre- 
suppose the occupation of the land, as Gen. 


92 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


Xxxvi:3I. This statement is said to indicate the 
time of the monarchy. But it is quite sufficient 
to consider this an interpolation by a later writer, 
who considered the explanation valuable. Even 
to add to earlier tables and bring them up to date 
was a natural thing for some later historian to 
do. Probably several such additions were made 
from time to time. Other passages suggesting 
later comments are Gen. xii: 8, as suggesting a 
Palestinian standpoint, xiv: 2, “ Bela, which is 
Zoar,” xix: 37, the expression “ unto this day.” 
All of these are reasonably explained when con- 
sidered probable later annotations. This explana- 
tion is the more reasonable because these com- 
ments take on the appearance of being interjec- 
tions, and do not partake of the general tone of 
the narrative which breathes an atmosphere of 
the earlier age. 


ANTIQUITY AND CHRONOLOGY 


We have noted in a former chapter the fact 
that modern scholarship has given us some new 
points of view from which to consider some of 
the statements in Genesis regarding the creation, 
both as to the time involved and the method of 
evolution. A related problem is that of the an- 
tiquity of man. The chronology of Archbishop 
Usher has been recognized as uncertain, previous 
to the time of Moses. The discussion as to 
whether Israel was actually 430 years in Egypt, 
or whether it was 430 years from Abraham to 


The Book of Genesis 93 


Moses (Acts vii: 6, and Gal. iii: 17), leaves the 
time to Abraham conjectural. Previous to Abra- 
ham the record is uncertain as to chronology. 
Just whether the names in Gen. x, refer to in- 
dividuals or tribes is a debated question. The 
fact is now beyond dispute that man has lived 
longer than 4000 years B. c. How much longer 
we do not know, but the simple fact justifies the 
statement that we are not to look for accurate 
chronology in the early chapters of Genesis. The 
evident purpose of the writer is to deal, with a 
few swift strokes of the pen, with the early his- 
tory of the race previous to the time of Israel in 
Egypt, when the special subject of the chosen 
people is reached. 


THE ELEMENT OF ALLEGORY IN GENESIS 


The foregoing consideration becomes the more 
evident when we note the character of the account 
of the early history. The word “ Adam” simply 
means “man.” Literally it signifies “ earth,” 
and refers to the earthly man. Wherever the 
word “man” occurs in the Old Testament, it is 
the Hebrew “adam.” The study of the early 
record, especially in the light of such New Tes- 
tament references as those of Paul in Romans v, 
and 1 Cor. xv, makes it clear that the teaching is 
regarding the generic man, rather than a particu- 
lar individual. Of course the generic man at the 
beginning was the Historic Adam who faced the 
problem of moral discipline, and in whose life all 


94 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


the life of the race was involved, as he entered 
into the experiences of sin. It is at the point of 
the account of man’s sin that we must note the 
allegorical character of the record. The key to 
this account is the expression “the tree of the 
knowledge of good and evil.” This is manifestly 
a figure. It suggests the setting of the garden, 
and other features of the picture. But while the 
method of statement is figurative, the fact set 
forth is the mighty reality of the moral struggle 
of the generic man, as he faced the responsibility, 
as a conscious moral agent, of obeying or dis- 
obeying the law of God. In his sin he has made 
necessary the help of a Saviour for man. This 
is the great fact to be brought out in the part 
of the record which is to be introductory to the 
story of the work of redemption. 


XI 


THE BOOK OF EXODUS 


Moses. Naturally we would expect to find 

in it a certain infusion of that peculiar evi- 
dence of personal knowledge which gives a liv- 
ing atmosphere to contemporaneous history. To 
the average man this spirit of autobiography ap- 
pears on every page. One of the notable com- 
mentaries on this book is that of Dr. Kalish. 
He viewed Exodus as “ forming the centre of 
the divine revelation,” and consequently as being 
“the most important volume which the human 
race possesses.” He brings the intimate familiar- 
ity of Jewish scholarship to his task, and declares, 
as against opposing theories, that “we see the 
completest harmony in all parts of Exodus; we 
consider it as a perfect whole, pervaded through- 
out by one spirit and the same leading ideas.” 
The book of Exodus reveals the purpose to show 
how Israel multiplied in Egypt until the time of 
Moses, to give an account of the circumstances 
in which the Israelites quitted Egypt, and to de- 
scribe the giving of the law, together with the 
way the people entered upon the institutional life 
which centred about the Tabernacle service. 


95 


I the book of Exodus we touch the life of 


96 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


There are some gaps in point of time, but the 
plan naturally omits much not needing to be re- 
corded. How important some items recorded 
may have been then we are not competent to 
judge now. There are sections which stand com- 
plete in themselves, but having the appearance 
of separate entries into the journal, made at dif- 
ferent times. The sections preserve a continuous 
harmony and are not disjointed in character. 
The critics point to this sectional character of 
the record as proof against its unity; but had a 
later writer been putting fragments together, he 
would naturally have omitted some of the repeti- 
tions and covered up the sectional points. The 
very character of the work indicates its original 
form. 

Objection is made to the Mosaic authorship of 
Exodus because Moses is spoken of in the third 
person, and because there are one or two expres- 
sions complimentary to Moses, which it is as- 
sumed he would not have written concerning 
himself. As to the first point, it is historic that 
Zenophon and Cesar, in writing histories of 
which they were the heroes, both spoke of them- 
selves in the third person. But we find this cus- 
tom common in Egypt in that day. As to the 
mention of a praiseful fact, as in xi: 3, we may 
say the wonder is there is not more of it. The 
reference is really modest, and the book is marked 
by a spirit of humility and a sense of unworthi- 
ness in Moses. The critics again claim a “ double 


The Book of Exodus 97 


treatment,” as it is called, for Exodus, as for all 
the other books of the Hexateuch. When one 
faithfully follows their analysis for a time, he is 
really astonished at the points they seize upon to 
prove composite authorship. 

But a more important fact is that he dis- 
covers the critics disagreeing among them- 
selves. A good illustration of this disagree- 
ment may be mentioned here. Professor 
Driver discusses the theories of Wellhausen 
and Dillman about a third writer being the 
probable author of certain passages in Exo- 
dus, and says: “ The point is one on which it is 
not possible to speak with confidence.” We find 
DeWette and Staehelin assigning the twentieth 
chapter to the Elohist, while Knobel insists that 
it belongs to the Jehovist. We read Staehelin’s 
statement—“‘ Wherever I find mention of a pillar 
of fire, or of a cloud, or of an angel of Jehovah, 
or of a coming down of God, I feel tolerably cer- 
tain that I am reading the words of the author 
of the second legislation,” and we begin to “ feel 
tolerably certain” that some arbitrary and fanci- 
ful guessing is going on in Staehelin’s imagina- 
tion in the name of scientific scholarship. These 
little ear-marks crop out now and then, as one 
studies the critics, and they tend greatly to de- 
stroy the confidence of the average man in the 
real value of their conclusions. 

The unity of the historic movement in the 
record points to one author of its main contents. 


98 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


Moreover certain facts strengthen the conviction 
that the author was familiar with Egyptian words 
and phrases. Canon Cook, in his appendix to 
Exodus in the Speaker's Commentary, shows 
that from thirty to forty Egyptian words occur 
in the first sixteen chapters. The writer not only 
shows familiarity with the language, but also 
with the climate, customs and products of Egypt, 
such as ordinarily implies residence there for 
some years. Of equal importance is the fact that 
the writer is thoroughly familiar with the phenom- 
ena of the Sinaitic peninsula. That part of the 
book which refers to the sojourn is pervaded by 
a local colouring, an atmosphere of the desert, 
which has always made itself felt by every travel- 
ler who has explored that region. This knowl- 
edge of Egypt and the peninsula points to Moses, 
as to no one else, as the writer. It is scarcely 
conceivable that some later writer should reveal 
these characteristics. Had a later writer lived in 
Egypt, it is too much to ask of us to imagine him 
travelling the infested peninsula that he might 
be able to reflect its atmosphere. There was no 
time between the exodus and the reign of Solo- 
mon when an Israelite would have been at all 
likely to possess such familiarity. 

Another special feature of the critical discus- 
sion of this book is the contention regarding the 
Tabernacle. The extreme critics claim that this 
section of Exodus is unhistorical, that it is the 
result of the effort of some late compiler to exalt 


The Book of Exodus 99 


the ideas of the people concerning the early priest- 
hood, and to give a greater importance to the 
earliest life of Israel. To do this the theory is 
that the features of the temple life at Solomon’s 
time were put back into the Tabernacle, so much 
of the setting being changed as would be neces- 
sary to make it appear natural in the desert. 
Concerning this theory more will be said when 
we come to discuss the books of Kings and 
Chronicles. It may be said here that this theory 
adds to the difficulties far more than it contrib- 
utes to clear them. Possibly some of the details 
may have been elaborated by a later hand, but 
we have no reasonable evidence that the substan- 
tial story of the Tabernacle and its service will 
not stand as historic from the beginning. 


XII 
THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS 


HE book of Leviticus forms the centre 

and heart of the five books of Moses. 

It contains the greater part of the Sinai- 

tic legislation, from the time of the erection of 
the Tabernacle, commonly termed the Levitical 
code. There are critics who favour different docu- 
ments in other parts of the Pentateuch who 
recognize the integrity of Leviticus, and attribute 
it mainly to one writer, the Elohist. But others 
bring their dissecting knife here as elsewhere. 
Only one passage suggests a late date, namely, 
Xvili: 28. But the context here shows a natural 
anticipation regarding Canaan, and the second 
half might have been added as a comment by a 
later writer. In the midst of the legislation we 
have a historic section, comprising chapters viii- 
x, recounting the consecration of Aaron and his 
sons. Certain naturalistic critics would repudi- 
ate the genuineness of this section because it 
records a miracle. Others declare it to have been 
forged at a later day to support the authority of 
the priestly caste. But it is difficult to believe 
that one who inserted an interpolation to exalt 
the priesthood of a later day, would have pic- 

100 


The Book of Leviticus 101 


tured the priests who figured in the narrative as 
receiving the punishment of death because of their 
sins. 

As to the legislation, the critics generally main- 
tain that these laws came into the life and cus- 
toms of Israel through years of development. It 
is not unlikely that some laws were added to this 
code in after years, but when one examines the 
opinions of the critics about the matter, he is not 
convinced. For instance, Dr. Driver comments 
thus on the fourth chapter: “ It is not impossible 
that this chapter may represent a more advanced 
stage in the growth of the sacrificial system than 
Ex. xxix, or Lev. viii-ix; for here the blood of 
the sin offering for the chief priest and for the 
people is treated with special solemnity, being 
brought within the veil, and sprinkled on the 
horns of the incense altar; whereas in Ex. xxix, 
and Lev. viii-ix, it is treated precisely as pre- 
scribed here in the case of the ordinary sin offer- 
ing.” Let the reader examine this text given by 
Dr. Driver, and note its character. Ex. xxix, 
contains instructions for the consecration of 
priests, and the reference to sin offerings is of a 
general character, in connection with the act of 
sanctifying the altar. Lev. iv, is the distinctive 
law of sin offerings, as applied to priests, to 
rulers, to a common citizen, and to the whole 
congregation respectively, Lev. viii-ix contain 
the account of the consecration of Aaron and his 
sons and their first offerings. To the average 


102 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


man there is no word or syllable to justify the 
idea that chapter iv contains any later legislation 
than chapters viii-ix. 

Of course when a book is largely a collection 
of laws, it is not strange that the very nature of 
the collection should lead to suggestions of a 
compilation through the years. But there are 
other tokens of earlier origin which must be kept 
in mind. Aaron and his sons move naturally 
through the scenes. The only place of worship 
mentioned is the Tabernacle. The Israelites are 
always described as a congregation under the 
authority of elders. Everything bespeaks the life 
of a camp, and that camp in command of Moses. 
The law touching sacrifices in chapter xvii, which 
was for the camp, is altered in Deut. xii, in view 
of the approaching permanent settlement in 
Canaan. Moreover certain laws are given as ob- 
taining against well-known Egyptian customs. 
Not only so, but warnings are given against the 
sins of the Canaanites. The chapter on the 
monuments makes it plain that Moses would be 
familiar with the life of Canaan, as well as Egypt. 
Israel is taught that because of Canaan’s sins the 
people are to be exterminated. An instance of 
familiarity with Egypt is the reference to mar- 
riage with sisters, a custom which stands there 
alone among the prevailing habits of antiquity. 

Another set of laws points to a pre-Canaanite 
origin, namely those in chapter xxv, which refer 
to the Sabbatical year and the year of jubilee. It 


The Book of Leviticus 103 


seems this law was never observed until after the 
captivity. We learn from 2 Chron. xxxvi: 21 
that the years of the captivity betokened the pur- 
pose of God to honour the law which Israel had 
broken. After the captivity the law was kept, 
as was that touching idolatry. But it is perfectly 
evident that no such law would have been pro- 
mulgated at any time between the settlement of 
the land and the captivity. Everything in the 
atmosphere of the life of Israel makes against 
such a possibility. This law is a part of that 
ideal state which was so fully elaborated by 
Moses, but never fully obeyed by recreant Israel. 
No theory of naturalistic development can ac- 
count for these ideal laws which were never kept. 
The keeping of them after the exile is marked by 
a knowledge of them as formerly existing, but 
not kept. The previous existence of the law is 
necessary to an adequate explanation of the later 
history of its final observance. Just such laws 
are the authority for the utterances of the proph- 
ets in condemnation of Israel’s failures and sins. 
This fact concerning Israel’s violations of Jeho- 
vah’s laws is one of the strongest evidences that 
Moses elaborated a system of legislation, such as 
no after period could have produced amid the 
laxity and license of the times. 

Canon Rawlinson points out that in the 
Book of Judges, “the sacred character of 
the Levites, their dispersion among the sev- 
eral tribes, the settlement of the high-priest- 


104 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


hood in the family of Aaron, the existence 
of the Ark of the Covenant, the power of 
inquiring of God, the binding character of a 
vow, the distinguishing mark of circumcision, the 
distinction between clean and unclean meats, the 
law of the Nazarites, the use of burnt-offerings 
and peace offerings, the employment of trumpets 
as a means of setting up a king,—all this consti- 
tutes clear evidence that the Mosaic ceremonial 
law was already recognized and considered in 
force.”” So in Samuel we find Eli the high-priest, 
of the house of Aaron, the lamp burns in the 
Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant is in the 
sanctuary, and the various kinds of sacrifices are 
referred to. It is a chain of evidence with strong 
links. 

The book of Leviticus is marked by a prophetic 
character. Its elaborate ritual is saturated with a 
spiritual significance. It is a shadow whereof the 
substance is Christ and His kingdom. The 
Epistle to the Hebrews presents this truth as its 
great theme, and teaches that Moses was the 
chosen servant of God through whom this system 
was given to Israel. The reference is as clear to 
the historic Moses as to the historic Abraham or 
the historic Christ. We read in Hebrews iii: 
5-6, (R. V), “ Moses indeed was faithful in all 
his house as a servant for a testimony of those 
things which were afterward to be spoken; but 
Christ as a son over His house.” The inspired 
writer means to say that Christ is the greater 


The Book of Leviticus 105 


Moses of the New Testament. Moses, with his 
marvellous gifts, was raised up, trained and 
called of God for his specific life-work, The law 
was given by Moses: grace and truth came by 
Jesus Christ. 

The tone of Israel’s life history does not 
suggest a gradual building of laws which 
came to permanent form after most of the na- 
tion’s life was spent. Instead of this, the book 
of Leviticus breathes a constant spirit of pro- 
phetic anticipation of Israel’s future development 
into greatness, according as these laws of God 
are honoured and obeyed. Moses stands out in 
the record as a man who was not a product of 
naturalistic growth, but an exceptionally equipped 
man through providential leadings, out of which 
experience he gave Israel such a beginning in its 
institutions as would have been impossible in 
ordinary conditions. Under the leadership of 
Joshua this high tone of the establishment of the 
people continued, but after his death the laws 
were ignored and every man did that which was 
right in his own eyes. The degeneration was not 
strange. But the high standard remained, though 
compromised and forgotten. Moses was ever the 
one great figure in all Israel’s career, and this 
undisputed fact makes it necessary for the critics 
to suggest that all after writers must needs put 
their contributions back under the name of Moses 
to give them the force of real law! This must 
mean that the day will yet come when this ac- 


106 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


knowledged greatness of Moses, dominating all 
Israel’s history, will be admitted as evidence of 
his actual achievements as law-giver at the begin- 
ning of the nation’s life. 


XIII 


THE BOOK OF NUMBERS 


TT special problems which the critics 
have suggested in the Book of Num- 
bers are numerous. Many attacks are 

not so much made against its authenticity as 

against its inspiration and credibility. Some of 
the critics always draw the line at divine inter- 
vention. DeWette says it is quite unnatural to 
suppose that Moses would have been willing to 
spend forty years in wanderings when he was so 
near to Canaan, and he takes offence at the state- 
ment that this wandering was a punishment for 

Israel’s disobedience. There is much of this kind 

of destructive opinion among the non-evangelical 

critics. 

Brief mention will be made of the special 
points in this book. There is a gap of thirty- 
seven years in the record, in which we have no 
mention of the doings of Israel, excepting the 
account of the rebellion of Korah and his coadju- 
tors. Some critics consider this proof that Israel 
did not remain forty years in the wilderness, while 
others take it as evident that the record is incom- 
plete. But we have noted in a former chapter the 
manifest design in the record to note only those 


107 


108 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


events which touch the development of the plan 
of redemption. Hence the record passes over in 
silence the time in which the people who are not 
to enter Canaan are supplanted by the rising 
generation. They have no more place in the 
record. Much criticism is also aroused by the 
way several events are apparently crowded into 
the record of the fortieth year. The difficulty 
arises out of the assumption that each event men- 
tioned was finished before the next took place; 
whereas nothing prevents the idea that several of 
them proceeded simultaneously, in which case the 
difficulty disappears. 

The critics have made vigorous attacks 
upon the statistics in this book, the number 
of fighting men, the number of the con- 
gregation and the number of the first born. 
It should be said that we cannot be sure of the 
Old Testament record in the case of figures. 
There are serious difficulties in the way of ac- 
cepting all the statements of figures. One of the 
easiest things to confuse would be figures in 
years of copying. Yet notwithstanding this fact, 
it is seldom necessary to question the record. In 
this particular case the reader is referred to 
Keil’s Commentary for a careful explanation and 
a fair solution of all the difficulties suggested. 
We are told the account of the setting apart of 
the tribe of Levi betrays the marks of fiction. 
But the undeniable fact remains that the six 
cities of refuge, mentioned in chapter xxxv, were 


The Book of Numbers 109 


actually occupied by the Levites from the begin- 
ning. It is further claimed that the statement in 
iv: 2-3, referring to the proper age of Levites 
for duty, contradicts that in viii: 24. But a mo- 
ment’s examination shows that the first refers to 
carrying the Tabernacle, and the second to per- 
forming sacred functions in the Tabernacle. The 
heavier task required an age of thirty years, 
while the lighter duties only required a certain 
maturity of twenty-five years. 

The episode of Balaam has naturally received 
considerable attention. It is true it has a dis- 
tinct character. It is also true that these three 
chapters might be dropped out and the record 
would seem to be complete just at that point 
without the account of Balaam. To the critics 
this is all-sufficient ground for declaring it to be 
a later contribution from a different source. But 
if the episode occurred then and there, the his- 
tory is not complete without it. Moreover, while 
the record from chapter xxi to xxv would seem 
unbroken, if the intervening section were drop- 
ped, still we would be at a loss to understand 
the references to Balaam in chapter xxxi, un- 
less we had this record. As to how Moses may 
have secured the material, we find in chapter 
xxxi that Balaam was slain among the Midian- 
ites and his effects captured. Therefore no 
special revelation was necessary for Moses to 
come into possession of the facts. Very naturally 
the style and literary finish would be different 


110 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


when the writer turned from the journalistic an- 
nals to such a theme, which must have thrilled 
his soul with the vision of the guidance of Israel’s 
God. Moreover the nations mentioned in Ba- 
laam’s prophecy belong to the Mosaic period. 
The Kenites later disappear entirely. Reference 
to Agag was once claimed as indicating the time 
of Saul, but it is proved to have been the general 
title of the Amalekite princes as Pharaoh among 
Egyptians and Cesar among Romans. 

Let us now note briefly some positive indica- 
tions of Mosaic authorship. The minute touches 
here and there point to a writer who had lived 
through it all, as in xi:5. Some of the passages 
clearly belong to the Mosaic age. Bleek con- 
cedes chapters i, ii, iii, iv, xix, and parts of 
vi, x, xxi, and xxxiii. Ewald agrees largely 
with this, and adds parts of x and xx, frankly 
admitting that “at a later period they could not 
have been attempted.” Concerning the camping 
stations noted in xxxiii there is almost unani- 
mous consent in attributing the record to Moses. 
As to the songs in xxi, Bleek, in his Jntroduc- 
tion, says: “It is so absolutely against all prob- 
ability that they should be the production of a 
later age that DeWette has acknowledged them 
to be of the age of Moses. If we find here songs 
which do not contain any reference at all to the 
circumstances of a later time, but are, on the 
contrary, full of features of individuality which 
are not otherwise intelligible, and are without 


The Book of Numbers III 


meaning except in reference to circumstances in 
the time of Moses, it becomes highly probable 
that they were not only composed in the Mosaic 
age, but that they were then written down, and 
have come down to us from thence.” 

We also have in this book the evidence of in- 
timate acquaintance with Egypt, as in xiii: 22. 
The reference to the boundary of the land sug- 
gests the time of Moses. The mention of the Ar- 
non as the boundary between Moab and the 
Amorites indicates a written record while the 
Israelitish army was still on the south bank of 
the river. Moreover the fact that the boundaries 
mentioned in xxxiv do not exactly correspond 
with the land actually occupied clearly points to 
this chapter as written before the entrance into 
Canaan, for no later writer, after Israel failed to 
occupy all the land, would ascribe to them land 
which they did not possess. 

It is quite likely that this book, like others, 
has a number of interpolations by later writers. 
It is generally thought the Old Testament canon 
received its permanent form during the Persian 
period in the years extending from Ezra to 
Nehemiah. The transmission of the Mosaic 
writings through a thousand years of copyists in 
the schools of the prophets and elsewhere would 
very naturally involve occasional marginal com- 
ments which would creep into the body of the 
text. In chapter xii: 3 we have an instance in 
point. In xv: 32 the indication is that the in- 


112 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


cident mentioned was recorded after the wilder- 
ness journey. We read that Joshua added to the 
book of the law, (Josh. xxiv: 26), and it is a 
reasonable inference that he recorded the account 
of the death of Moses at the end of Deuteronomy 
and added some comments at other points in the 
history. With all these additions taken into ac- 
count in the development of the people and their 
institutions, the indications mentioned above still 
point to the substantial Mosaic authorship, the 
importance of which we wish to emphasize. It 
seems more rational to recognize occasional later 
touches as brief supplementary comments, than 
to elaborate an analysis of fragments, concerning 
the details of which no two experts agree. 


XIV 


THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY 


HE title of this book is likely to be mis- 

: leading as it is apt to suggest that we 

have here either a second code of laws, 
or a recapitulation of laws already given, whereas 
it is rather a summary of the most salient fea- 
tures of Jehovah’s dealings with Israel, and the 
commandments whose observance was of su- 
preme importance when the people were settled 
in the promised land. Many parts of the law 
already given are not mentioned, and few new 
laws are given. It is the personal and ethical, 
rather than the political and official aspect of the 
law that is dwelt upon. In fact, the book con- 
sists of a series of sermons having historical and 
legislative features, but especially hortatory, and 
revealing the subjective spirit of the author. 
This latter feature is in contrast to the previous 
books, in which the objective element prevails. 
The admonitions, appeals and warnings of Moses 
are enforced by constant references to the history 
and law which the people already knew. 

The living Moses moves through the atmos- 
phere of this book. The attitude of the writer, 
both retrospective and prospective, is that of one 

113 


114 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


in the position of Moses at the time immediately 
before the entrance into Canaan. There is not a 
hint of Jerusalem, or the temple, or the later 
life in the land. Such an expression as “ beyond 
the Jordan” may have been added later. The 
principal foes are the Canaanites who disappear 
from the record in the time of the Judges. The 
vivid reminiscences of Egypt suggest their recent 
occurrence. Such a statement as that in iv: 3-4 
is only intelligible as spoken to those who wit- 
nessed the incident mentioned. All this points 
to a substantial Mosaic authorship. 

And yet the radical critics tell us it is quite 
impossible to believe that Moses could have 
written it. They hold this view because there is 
such a marked difference of style from that which 
marks the fragments which they concede to be 
Mosaic, and because of the same general grounds 
on which they stand against the Mosaic author- 
ship of most of the Pentateuch. When the aver- 
age man asks how we are to set aside the contin- 
uous claim in the record that the material is 
Mosaic, the answer given is the most serious yet 
made by the critics. They must explain Moses 
away somehow, and rather than abandon their 
theory, they go to an extreme which is aston- 
ishing. They boldly tell us the author of this 
book put the name of Moses upon it in order to 
give it standing at a later time. They do not 
like the word forgery, and tell us we must not 
think of this sort of transaction as forgery, for 


The Book of Deuteronomy 115 


when Scripture writers did this, it was not in- 
tended to deceive, but to throw light upon the 
historical situation. 

That explanation may possibly do in some 
instances, but in this one it does not satisfy. 
We ask for the name of the man who did 
this thing, and are informed that it was prob- 
ably the prophet Jeremiah! How can a man 
be complacent in face of such a statement as 
that? How were holy men moved by the 
Holy Spirit to perpetrate such false assumptions 
upon the people? We are told that probably 
Jeremiah and his cousin Hilkiah connived in 
giving this forth as the law which they found in 
the temple at the time of Josiah, having prepared 
it for the occasion, and thus bringing it forward 
just at the appropriate moment to inaugurate the 
great revival in Josiah’s reign! We are told this 
must not affect our appreciation of Jeremiah as a 
man of integrity and the messenger of the God 
of righteousness to Israel! This theory must be 
carefully considered. 

The reasons given by the critics are quite in- 
sufficient. They say if the law had existed be- 
fore this time it is inconceivable that it should 
have been lost as the record teaches. But the 
conditions readily explain the failure, as we have 
noted heretofore. The deplorable idolatry that 
prevailed during the reigns of Manasseh and 
Ammon, extending through half a century, is all- 
sufficient explanation of the fact that the Pen- 


116 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


tateuch was neglected and ignored, and by many 
actually unknown. Only the few were educated. 
The multitude were ignorant. It is urged fur- 
ther that the whole book could not have been 
read through in one day. But it is assuming to 
say it is so reported to have been read. More- 
over it is asserted that it looks very suspicious 
to have the book found just at the time when it 
was needed to assist the plans of the reformers! 
Divine providence counts for nothing! 

If Jeremiah could declare from Moses what 
was his own, why could he not declare from God 
what was simply his own? No, this is not fair to 
Jeremiah. The advocates of this theory seem 
to have forgotten the dark ages of Europe, pre- 
vious to the Protestant Reformation, when the 
Bible was actually unknown to the multitudes 
and known only to the few, while its teachings 
were a dead letter and its spirit perverted. Their 
argument would prove that no New Testament 
existed until Luther found it in a library and 
brought it forth to the people. This fact of a 
lost and forgotten Bible within recent centuries 
throws much light on the whole claim that be- 
cause Mosaic laws were not obeyed therefore they 
did not exist. 

Of course it cannot be claimed that this theory 
is the result of scientific scholarship. This is a 
theory made to fit in with the preconceived 
theory, which must include Deuteronomy or fall. 
Let the reader turn to the book of Deuteronomy 


The Book of Deuteronomy 117 


and read it through. Then let him turn to 2 
Kings xxii and 2 Chron. xxxiv. He can judge 
of their meaning and tone as well as any man. 
It is a plain story in itself, and its main point 
is that it contains threatenings of punishment 
because “their fathers had not kept the word 
of the Lord, to do after all that was written in 
this book.” The fathers had had this book in 
their possession, for their sin was that “ they had 
not kept the word of the Lord, to do after all 
that was written in the book.” This was the 
understanding of those who announced its dis- 
covery, or they pretended it to be so. But if the 
fathers had not seen it, they had not sinned as is 
represented here! Not only so, but we note 
again and again how Moses is asserted to have 
spoken, to have blessed the people, etc. Dr. 
Driver says concerning the song in chapter 
xxxii: “The theme is developed with great lit- 
erary and artistic skill,” and yet the brilliant 
writer cannot prevent the confident critics from 
discovering that the song was written long after 
Moses’ time! The book declares that it came 
from Moses, but this declaration counts for 
nothing in the mind of the radical critic. 

The extent of the deception practiced can only 
be realized by reading the book through, keeping 
in mind this theory, that it was written some 
nine hundred years after the time of Moses, and 
that the historical references to incidents which 
are represented as. occurring are the merest fic- 


118 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


tions of possible traditions! The great point in 
the theory is that the few men in the scheme 
sought to make the people believe that Moses 
wrote the book in order to give them greater 
authority, in their effort to put down idolatry 
and advance righteousness! They even specified 
the year, the month and the day on which they 
said Moses began to speak the message recorded ! 
Kuenen says of these men: “ They considered 
themselves exempt from all responsibility.” But 
it will be a long time before the average man will 
believe that such a motive can be back of such 
a production. Dr. Alexander Stewart, of Aber- 
deen, says truly; “The books of Moses are so 
high in moral sentiment, so pure in moral prin- 
ciple, so strong in defence of righteousness, and 
so full of reverence for truth and God, that it is 
impossible morally to believe that men so falsify- 
ing history for a purpose could have composed at 
the same time such a noble moral structure as 
the Pentateuch.” The average man cannot be- 
lieve such a theory will ever commend itself, or 
that the facts will ever be apparent which will 
justify the acceptance of it by the general public. 


XV 


THE BOOK OF JOSHUA 


ei Jews were accustomed to separate the 


book of Joshua from the Pentateuch. 

The five books of Moses composed 
what they called the Law. Joshua was grouped 
with Judges, Samuel and the Kings, composing 
the books known as the “Former prophets.” 
Evidently this division had its primary explana- 
tion in the fact that Moses was identified in the 
Jewish mind with the Pentateuch. Doubtless the 
close connection of Joshua with the preceding 
record was always recognized, but more con- 
spicuous than this connection was the fact that 
the age of Moses stands out as peculiarly the 
age of the authoritative establishment of the peo- 
ple under divine institutions received at the hand 
of the great lawgiver. 

From another point of view the book of 
Joshua may properly be grouped with the 
Pentateuchal rather than the succeeding rec- 
ords. As a portion of the history, it fills 
out the account of the settlement of the promised 
land. When thus added, the group of six books 
is called the Hexateuch. The book abounds in 
references to the law of Moses, and to the in- 

IIg 


120 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


structions which he gave to Joshua as his divinely 
appointed successor in the work of completing 
the conquest and settlement of the land, and es- 
tablishing the people in the law and worship of 
God. Therefore if the composite authorship of 
the Pentateuch is maintained, much of it claimed 
to be later than Joshua’s time, the book bearing 
his name must also come into this category. 

The arguments here are like unto those already 
mentioned in former chapters. For instance it is 
urged that the book of Jasher was not written 
earlier than the time of David, and hence the 
mention of this book in Joshua is proof that 
Joshua was not written until David’s time. But 
there is reason to believe the book of Jasher was 
a collection of national ballads which received 
additions from time to time, as events occurred 
which occasioned their writing. In Joshua x: 13 
the Syriac version calls it the Book of Canticles, 
and understands it to be a book of songs com- 
memorative of the brave deeds of Israelitish 
heroes. Jasher means “ upright,” and the name 
would be equivalent to the ““ Hero Book” of the 
nation. Reasonable explanations are likewise 
given for the various traces of a later date pre- 
sented by the critics. An occasional instance may 
best be explained as an interpolation or an in- 
accuracy in transmission. 

Far more serious is the charge of the 
critics that the Deuteronomist embodied the 
references to his own work in the book of 


The Book of Joshua 121 


Joshua in order to facilitate the reception 
of his pretended laws of Moses. Ewald .and 
Knobel attribute the work to the Deuteronomist, 
taking for granted, in their characteristic as- 
surance, everything necessary to their theory. 
Yet when it comes to details, Knobel pronounces 
Ewald’s system “so complicated and obscure a 
fabric,” so devoid of all tenable hypothesis that 
it fails to convince. Of course Knobel expects 
his views to convince, but they fail with the 
average man, just as Ewald’s fail with him. 
Again the motive in the authorship repels us. 
There are marks of human imperfection in the 
Scriptures, but the average believer is not ready 
to accept a theory which involves a cunning spirit 
of deception which deliberately purposes to mis- 
lead, especially when the very end of the book is 
to secure truth and righteousness. 

There are indications of earlier authorship. 
We have already noted that chapter xxiv: 26 re- 
ports Joshua as recording in the book of the 
Law. This points to the fact that he left written 
material. There is no allusion whatever to later 
conditions in Israel. The statement in ix: 27 
shows that the place had not yet been chosen for 
the permanent altar of the Lord. The reference 
to the Canaanites in Gezer, in xvi: 10 indicates 
a time before Othniel was judge. Along with 
such indications there are occasional touches to 
refute the theory that the same writer gave us 
the Pentateuch and Joshua. For instance, a 


122 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


shorter, more archaic form for Jericho is used 
throughout the Pentateuch, while the fuller form 
is used in Joshua. 

It must be remembered that Joshua stood with 
Moses on the high level of a noble beginning for 
Israel. During his life the conditions were 
marked by an allegiance to Jehovah which was 
quite in keeping with what we would expect from 
the generation which came out of the discipline 
of the desert, with a faith in God strong and 
earnest. But it was when Joshua died and the 
men of his generation died, that the time of de- 
generation set in. Dr. King suggests that prob- 
ably a simpler theory than those already ad- 
vanced by the critics will be found to satisfy the 
facts, and will be necessary before there will 
be general acceptance of the same. 

What could be more reasonable than the theory 
that Israel had a start which was not a fragmen- 
tary beginning, out of primitive conditions, to be 
slowly built up through the ages ; but a beginning 
marked by the gigantic contributions of the most 
unique man of the early ages, whose training 
fitted him to give them laws and institutions, 
marked by comparisons and contrasts with the 
laws and institutions of the surrounding nations, 
and having a degree of completeness at the very 
start which the whole setting of the history 
makes reasonable? The long years of degenera- 
tion easily explain all the failures of the people 
to obey the laws, and also make against the 


The Book of Joshua 123 


theories of very elaborate development of laws 
and institutions by these recreant generations. 

With the bulk of the Pentateuch Mosaic, 
breathing the atmosphere of the Mosaic time, 
the comments and touches of a later hand may 
all have adequate explanation, and the future 
books of history and prophecy remain forceful 
in their natural significance as finding meaning 
and authority in view of the long-established, 
though much disobeyed, laws of Moses. Some 
such theory is modestly set forth as most likely 
to be ultimately established. Genesis may clearly 
be recognized as a compilation, but the remain- 
ing four books of the Pentateuch should have a 
substantial unity from the beginning. The rest 
of the Old Testament makes no such claim for 
its authorship as does the Pentateuch. Much of 
it comes from unknown writers, whose identity 
is relatively unimportant; but Moses stands out 
as the dominant personality of Hebrew history, 
and will maintain his place. 


XVI 


THE BOOKS OF JUDGES AND SAMUEL 


(far book of Judges is not technically a 


history, but a collection of narratives 

relating certain important incidents 
which occurred during that time of imperfect 
organization extending from the occupation of 
Canaan to the establishment of the monarchy. 
The chronology of those early years is uncertain, 
due not only to the fact that the time of Israel’s 
sojourn in Egypt is a matter of debate, but also 
to the fact that the figures in the records seem 
to have suffered in transmission. Wherever we 
find difficulties in Scripture with figures, it is 
reasonable to believe the historian was accurate, 
but that copyists or compilers have made the 
mistakes which occasion uncertainty about some 
of the records. The narratives in this book ap- 
pear to be extracts from tribal annals. They 
are notable incidents, selected in accord with the 
great plan which dominates the whole record, to 
illustrate the mercy and power of the covenant 
God, to denounce idolatry, and to confirm the 
people in their faith and obedience. The minute 
details suggest early material from which the 

124 


The Books of Judges and Samuel 125 


record is compiled, but indications point to the 
time of Saul as the period of its compilation. 

The special fact to be noted which bears upon 
the critical problem is that the records maintain 
silence concerning the services of the Tabernacle. 
Consequently it is urged that no Tabernacle serv- 
ice existed, and indeed that there was no Taber- 
nacle. But the analysis of the character of the 
book throws light upon this silence. The nar- 
rative reveals troublous times after the death of 
Joshua and through the entire period. National 
unity had never been realized, and the few facts 
recorded point to tribal isolation and even periods 
of tribal antagonism. After the death of Phineas 
as high priest, the central worship at Shiloh lost 
its prestige, and the several tribes had their own 
places of worship, and at times their own priests, 
as in the case of Micah recorded in chapter xvii. 
Between Phineas and Eli the priesthood degen- 
erated and idolatry supplanted the worship of 
Jehovah. Yet we read in chapter xviii: 31 “all 
the time that the house of God was in Shiloh,” 
and again in chapter xx:27 “the ark of the 
covenant of God was there in those days.” The 
fact that the ark was neglected is not proof that 
it did not exist. Moreover in chapters xvii, xix, 
and xx we find references to the high priest and 
to the Levites as the ministers of God. 

Reference is made to this subject here, for 
we shall find occasion later to recall it as in- 
volved in the theory of a gradual development 


126 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


of the laws and institutions of Israel, to which 
we have already alluded. This theory involves 
the entire literature of the Old Testament. 
Doubtless there was an evolution of the national 
life in all of its features; but it is all consistent 
with the fact that Israel was established in the 
theocratic institutions by Moses. One of the 
main arguments connected with this general 
theory is that there developed a priestly caste 
which did not hesitate to do anything to secure 
prestige, and that the priests changed the rec- 
ords, going back to the beginning and putting 
into the narrative these elaborate descriptions of 
ritual and ceremonial to secure the evidence of 
the divine sanction to their claims. We have dis- 
cussed the principle involved in this theory, and 
shall return to it again. At this point the reader 
will note how the absence of mention of the ob- 
servance of the worship of God in the book of | 
Judges is claimed to support this theory against 
the standing of the priesthood. We have pointed 
out the line of explanation. We well know that 
high offices have often been maintained though 
their occupants were unworthy. 

The Books of Samuel are one book, wherein 
we find the organizer of national life at work 
in Israel. Out of the disordered conditions of 
the times of the Judges he brought an approach 
to unity and federation among the tribes. The 
books of Judges and Samuel both abound in 
evidences of a knowledge of the Pentateuchal lit- 


The Books of Judges and Samuel 127 


erature. At times the verbal quotations show 
the writer of Samuel to be familiar with the nar- 
ratives of Judges, as 1 Sam. xii:g and 2 Sam. 
xi:21. The work of Eli evidently contributed 
much to make the way ready for Samuel, and it 
is most significant that Eli was priest as well 
as judge, as was also Samuel. What could more 
clearly point to a prestige of the priesthood which 
is not in need of artificial explanation? 

The foundation of Samuel’s reforms was the 
restoration of the moral and religious life of the 
people, putting down idolatry and witchcraft. The 
Philistine invasion again involves the Ark of the 
Covenant, and the narrative constantly breathes 
the spirit of a recognition of God’s laws, given 
long before, but neglected. Samuel established 
schools, and the very subject of study in them 
was the law of Moses, and the history of Je- 
hovah’s leadings. Samuel also established, under 
protest, a constitutional monarchy, whose law 
for king and people was the law given by Moses 
at Sinai. 

The second book of Samuel touches the life 
and work of David, and is to be considered in 
connection with the critical problem for two 
things. First, for its history of the establish- 
ment of the kingdom by David. This record is 
essential to Holy Scripture, and is vitally im- 
portant to that conception of divine activity in 
the history of Israel which makes that history 
much more than a natural growth. To the aver- 


128 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


age man it bears the features of historic accuracy 
and personal knowledge. It also begins a chro- 
nology which may fairly be fixed. This book is 
also important as furnishing the historic setting 
to some of the Psalms. The student will be able 
to understand some of the psalms as he could not 
without this record. The intensity of spiritual 
struggle which has so profoundly stirred the hu- 
man heart is the very inscription of the biog- 
raphy recorded here, and breathes the reality of 
a life that knows the varied experiences of a 
sinful heart which has found forgiveness and 
peace with God. 


XVII 


THE BOOKS OF KINGS AND CHRONICLES 


‘he books are considered together since 


their relations are involved in some of 

the most serious problems in our study. 
They both are in general accord with the great 
plan of the Bible, and therefore do not give a full 
account of the history reviewed, but seek to show 
how the rise or fall, the glory or decline, of 
either or both of the divided kingdoms were the 
results of piety and faithfulness, or of idolatry 
and irreligion. Hence much more space is given 
to some kings and prophets than to others. 


THE BOOK OF KINGS 


This is one book in the Hebrew. It reviews 
the history from the time of Samuel to the dis- 
ruption, and then parallels the movements of 
Israel and Judah. The critics generally agree 
in giving this book first rank among the his- 
torical materials of the Old Testament. The his- 
torian draws upon his resources according to the 
plan already noted, and frequently refers to 
fuller details to be found elsewhere. He covers 
a period of about four hundred years, and men- 
tions the Book of Solomon, and the Book of the 

129 


130 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


Kings of Judah. It would seem probable that 
the present form was given to the book about 
the time of the Captivity, the material being 
drawn from contemporaneous records. 


THE BOOK OF CHRONICLES 


In Hastings’ new Dictionary of the Bible the 
article on Chronicles is from the pen of Dr. 
Francis Brown. The general reader who would 
be interested in studying a specimen of Higher 
Criticism at its best will be rewarded by examin- 
ing this article. For acumen of scholarship, for 
painstaking detail, for reverent spirit, this article 
rises to the highest level of Criticism. The writer 
cannot agree with all of Dr. Brown’s conclusions, 
but commends the spirit of his work. This book 
is also one in the original, and seems to be of a 
supplementary character. Most of the early 
manuscripts place it near the last in the Old Tes- 
tament collection, but it is placed with Kings 
because of its similarity in contents. Its author- 
ship was almost certainly after the exile. The 
fact that Chronicles and Kings contain passages 
almost word for word alike points to the Book 
of Kings as the source of much of its material, 
or to the same sources which the author of Kings 
used. It refers to the Acts of Solomon, the 
Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, 
the Book of Shemaiah the Prophet and Iddo the 
Seer, also the books of the Kings of Israel and 
Judah. This last is probably our book of Kings. 


The Books of Kings and Chronicles 131 


Indications point to Ezra and Nehemiah as com- 
ing from the same atmosphere, and possibly 
from the same writer. After its tables of gene- 
alogy, this book gives some attention to the 
reigns of David and Solomon, and then follows 
the fortunes of the kings of Judah. 

The book of Chronicles presents serious dif- 
ficulties to the student. Its place in the Old Tes- 
tament Canon was tardily granted. Where its 
narrative conflicts with that in Samuel or Kings, 
it is reasonable to give the earlier books the pref- 
erence, as having greater reliability. For in- 
stance we read in 2Chron. xiii: 3 that Reho- 
boam’s army, at the succession of Abijah, num- 
bered 400,000 men, while that of Jereboam num- 
bered 800,000. But in 1 Kings xii: 2I we are 
told the army of Rehoboam numbered 180,000. 
At the battle of Waterloo the French army num- 
bered 72,000 men, while the allied forces num- 
bered 91,000. We can only look upon the 
smaller number as nearer the fact. Dr. Brown 
says: “It would be unjust to call the Chronicler 
a falsifier. He shows himself, on the contrary, as 
a man of great sincerity and moral earnestness. 

His view of the past is that of a son of his 
own age, in whom the historical imagination had 
not been largely developed. . . . David and Solo- 
mon he idealized, depicting the religion of their 
time according to what seemed to him the neces- 
sary conditions of righteousness.” Dr. Brown 
adds: “It follows that the value of Chronicles is 


132 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


not mainly that of an accurate record of past 
events. Nevertheless, its value is very great. It 
is, however, the value of a sermon more than of a 
history. . . . The knowledge the author gives 
us of his own time, also is historically impor- 
tant. The fact that he clothes old history with 
his own contemporary habits makes his own time 
more intelligible to us.” 


ACTUAL AND ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES 


Perhaps there is no more appropriate place 
than this to discuss discrepancies, for the Book 
of Chronicles suggests more than any other. 
Mention has been made of the difficulties in- 
volved in the large numbers given at times. 
One instance additional will suffice. In 1 Chron. 
v: 21 the capture of the Hagarites includes 
“100,000 prisoners, 50,000 camels, 250,000 sheep 
and 2,000 asses.” It seems impossible to avoid 
the conviction of exaggeration here, whether by 
the original writer, or some later copyist or 
editor. The same person may have enlarged 
some of the figures in earlier records, as in the 
book of Numbers, because he thought it impor- 
tant to give the impression which goes with the 
greatness of numbers. These features are there; 
but we realize that they do not hinder the truth 
which shines all about them. Just how and when 
they originated we can never know. It is not 
important that we should, for they are incidental, 


The Books of Kings and Chronicles 133 


not fundamental, to the teaching of the history. 
As has been said, they are but “ specks of sand- 
stone in the marble temple.” 

But more important is the fact that many al- 
leged discrepancies do not appear so evident upon 
careful examination. One or two instances must 
suffice, though there are many. We are told that 
2 Chron. xiv:3-5 and xv:17 contradict each 
other. In the first passage we read that “ Asa 
took away the altars of the strange gods, and the 
high places . . . and took away out of all the 
cities of Judah the high places and the images.” 
In the second passage we read of a time toward 
the end of his reign of forty-one years, “ but the 
high places were not taken away out of Israel: 
nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his 
days.” The preceding verse informs us that Asa 
removed his mother from being queen “ because 
she had made an idol in a grove, and Asa cut 
down her idol and stamped it, and burnt it at the 
brook Kidron.” This is a clear side light on the 
two statements. Asa issued a proclamation that 
every altar should be destroyed and actually exe- 
cuted the law in all the cities. For a time the 
abomination was abated. But when his own 
mother encouraged idolatry, it is not strange that 
it should creep in again during his reign, though 
the king himself proved faithful. It is not stated 
that it was allowed in the cities, whence Asa had 
driven out the altars. Surely only common sense 


134 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


interpretation is needed to see that there is no 
contradiction here! 

Another charge is that Chronicles frequently 
contradicts statements in other books. One of 
the most famous alleged instances is that of 2 
Sam. xxiv:24 and 1 Chron. xxi: 22-25. Upon 
reading the two passages it is at once apparent 
that Ornan desired David, who has offered to 
buy the place of the threshing floor, to accept 
the oxen and wheat and wood for an altar and 
offerings. But David refuses to accept anything 
as a gift. It does not appear that Ornan wished 
to give the land, but did offer the oxen, wheat, 
etc. Now in Samuel it is in connection with the 
purchase of the oxen that David paid fifty 
shekels of silver. But in Chronicles it is clearly 
asserted that the price of the place whereon the 
threshing floor stood was six hundred shekels 
of gold. We learn that Solomon built the temple 
on this land, and it must have been much larger 
than the actual space used for the threshing floor. 
And since David insisted on paying the full value 
for everything purchased, it is certainly far more 
reasonable to accept the exact statements given, 
than to say with the critics that the writer of 
Chronicles thought the smaller sum unworthy of 
a royal purchaser, and therefore placed the larger 
sum in his record of his transaction. There is no 
contradiction whatever. Putting both accounts 
together, as they may quite reasonably be placed, 
it follows that David paid six hundred shekels in 


The Books of Kings and Chronicles 135 


gold for the land, and fifty shekels in silver for 
the oxen, wheat, etc. 


THE PRIESTS, THE TABERNACLE AND THE TEMPLE 


We come now to one of the most serious dis- 
cussions in all the Old Testament. We have pre- 
ferred to take up the subject at this point, for 
the contention involves the whole of the historic 
material. DeWette and other critics have urged 
that Chronicles is the book which especially be- 
trays priestly design and ambition. DeWette 
charges the writer with unscrupulous indulgences 
of strong Levitical prejudices, writing up every- 
thing belonging to Judah looking in the ecclesias- 
tical direction. But certain facts make against 
this assumption. What could be more natural, 
with the rebuilding of the Temple, than to exalt 
its place and the importance of its services in the 
minds of the people? Any historian, anxious to 
teach the great lesson of the suffering and dis- 
cipline of the Captivity, must have realized the 
necessity of emphasizing the supreme place of 
the nation’s religious life, the neglect of which 
had proved so disastrous in the past. This fact 
alone justifies fully the dominant tone of the 
book of Chronicles. It is the charter of recon- 
struction of a shattered kingdom on its proper 
historical basis, as a theocracy in whose life the 
living God has His throne in the hearts of a peni- 
tent people. De Wette further charges the writer 
as having a weak leaning toward the super- 


136 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


natural. But it is a plain fact that more of the 
miraculous is recorded in Samuel and Kings than 
in Chronicles. 

But the most searching of all the revolutionary 
theories of the critics is that which asserts that 
there was no Tabernacle in the wilderness, and 
no Tabernacle service previous to the Temple! 
Wellhausen, in The History of Israel, is the 
champion of this view. He claims the whole 
story was a priestly fiction, suggested from the 
Temple of Solomon, the ideas of that Temple 
being thrown back upon the preceding ages in 
order to give force to the doctrine of the unity 
of the place of worship, and so to give more 
power and influence to the priests and to the re- 
forming kings in their work. The further reason 
given for this theory is that the early ideas of 
religion were very low and primitive in Israel, 
as everywhere. Hence the Tabernacle and its 
worship were too much in advance of the people 
to have existed in the time of Moses, and could 
not have been developed in that age. But the 
priests in the Temple felt the necessity of some- 
thing as a prior existence and set their imagina- 
tions to work to fill up the gap, with the result 
which we see! 

Let him believe it who can! The writer 
cannot! Geike, in Hours With the Bible, 
points out that “sacred arks had been seen in 
every temple in Egypt, as the shrines of the idols, 
or of some object equally sacred and idolatrous.” 


The Books of Kings and Chronicles 137 


Jehovah proposed to have just such a familiar 
shrine for His dwelling place with His people, 
lifted above the idolatrous plane of the surround- 
ing nations. Stanley in his History of the Jew- 
ish Church shows that the material used points 
to Egypt, to the wilderness and to the region 
of the Red Sea, and emphasizes the fact that the 
names of the architects of the Temple are lost, 
but the names of the builders of the Tabernacle 
are recorded. To say the whole story of Moses 
in all his doings as builder of the Tabernacle is 
one long fabrication, and that all the references 
in the Scriptures between the time of Moses and 
that of Solomon were shrewd interpolations, is 
the most stupendous proposition of all which the 
critics venture to make. It works havoc with 
the record, and were it not that so many critics 
seriously accept the view, we would not deem it 
needful to dwell upon it. This theory tends to 
shake the confidence of the average man in the 
whole critical teaching more than any other phase 
of the movement. 

Some brief considerations must suffice. The 
Scriptures which follow the account in Exodus— 
law, history, prophecy, psalms—teem with al- 
lusions to the Tabernacle, naturally woven into 
the narrative. To object to it because it is called 
the “house of God” is to deny a natural figure 
of language. Jacob applied the same term to the 
rugged rocks of Bethel. The great argument 
offered is that the law insists upon one place of 


138 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


worship, but the record shows many places to 
have been used. Hence there was no one special 
place of worship. But the history makes it plain 
that the Tabernacle rested at Gilgal and was 
later established at Shiloh, which was the centre 
of worship and inquiry of God. (Judges xx: 26- 
27 and xxi.) Exceptional worship by Joshua on 
Mt. Ebal (x:43), and by the two and a half 
tribes beyond the river (xxii), is justified by the 
exceptional conditions which are set forth in the 
record. 

Later at Gibeah David and Solomon came 
because “‘there was the Tabernacle of the 
congregation of God, which Moses the servant 
of the Lord had made in the wilderness.” Then 
in I Kings viii: 4 the acount of the connections 
between the Tabernacle and the Temple are told 
in a plain, natural way. Much is made by some 
of the apparent fact that the altars are not made 
of earth, as commanded. But it is quite reason- 
able to think that the frames of the altars were 
filled with earth always at the place of the camp. 
Again it is urged that several places in the record 
state that God did not command the offering of 
sacrifices; but it is astonishing to read some of 
these comments, when it is perfectly evident that 
the reference in such cases is to spiritual sincerity 
when outward forms are used. The contrite heart 
gives value to the external form. Nothing else 
is involved in these passages. There was one 
special place of worship, which was the place 


The Books of Kings and Chronicles 139 


of the abode of the Tabernacle through the 
years. Various conditions and events left the 
continuity of worship broken, but the place never 
lost its unique significance until the Temple su- 
perseded it as the abiding house of God. 

Let the reader note the statements in Joshua 
Vili: 31-34, xiii: 14, xvili:1I, and consider the 
perfect naturalness of the record. Recall the 
accounts of Eli and Samuel. Note 1 Kings ii: 2- 
3, and xi:34 as involving previous legislation. 
Note Jereboam’s sin to be in ignoring the Levites 
as priests, I Kings xii: 27-31. Wellhausen ad- 
mits the apparent early setting of the story, but 
says the writer “ tries hard to imitate the costume 
of the Mosaic period and to disguise his own!” 
He adds:—“ The priestly code guards itself 
against all references to later times and settled 
life in Canaan, which both in the Jehovistic book 
of the Covenant and in Deuteronomy are the ex- 
press basis of the legislation. It keeps itself 
carefully and strictly within the limits of the 
situation in the wilderness, for which in all se- 
riousness it seeks to give the law!” This is 
really astonishing! 

The plain fact is that all the codes have 
references to the settled life of Canaan, mak- 
ing provision therefor. See Ex. xxxiii: 2-3, 
and xxxiv, Lev. xix:9-10, xx: 22-24 and xxiii. 
Let it be granted the legislation was in advance 
of the people. So it is now! The Dark Ages in 
Israel’s history came between the high level of 


140 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


the time of Moses and Joshua and the reign of 
David, and then again there was a general de- 
cline of the divided kingdoms with occasional 
reformations. But the straightforward history 
of the persisting recognition of God’s authority 
from the beginning, through all the defections of 
the people, points to a historic basis which was 
no fiction of after centuries, but the abiding sense 
of Mosaic law and institution through the years 
of Israel’s history. No! This astounding theory 
of the critics will never be accepted by the aver- 
age man, for the facts are against it. 


XVIII 


THE POETICAL BOOKS 


‘T= poetical books of the Bible do not de- 


mand special attention in a discussion 

of biblical Criticism, partly because 
much of the material is anonymous, and partly 
because it is not so vitally related to the historic 
structure of the national life of Israel. From the 
time of Moses and Job to that of the later proph- 
ets the poet had more or less place in the literary 
and religious culture of the people. Of course 
the critics have various theories about all these 
productions; but they are of secondary impor- 
tance. The grouping will include the wisdom 
literature and the songs and psalms. 


THE BOOK OF JOB 


The book of Job is mainly poetry, with prose 
introduction and conclusion. The difference in 
style and thought between the prose and poetry 
is quite marked, and hence the unity of the book 
has been questioned. Yet even Ewald says: 
“The prosaic words harmonize thoroughly with 
the old poem in subjective matter and thoughts, 
so far as prose can be like poetry.” Mr. Froude 
says: “ The book of Job is now considered to be, 
beyond all doubt, a genuine Hebrew original, 
completed by its writer almost in the form in 


141 


142 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


which it now remains to us. The questions on 
the authenticity of the prologue and epilogue, 
which were once thought important, have given 
way before a more sound conception of the 
dramatic unity of the entire poem.” It is an 
age-long cry of the human heart in the effort to 
comprehend the relation of God, righteous and 
loving, to human suffering. 


THE BOOK OF PSALMS 


The book of Psalms is designated in the 
Hebrew a book of praises and also a book of 
prayers. The two terms are fairly descriptive of 
the general character of the work, which re- 
veals throughout a highly devotional spirit. 
Lyrical compositions from the earliest times 
among the Hebrews had titles and superscrip- 
tions attached, indicating the theme, or the name 
of the writer, or perhaps specifying some inci- 
dent as historic explanation. There are various 
theories about the titles of the Psalms, the dis- 
cussion being concerned mainly about the time 
of their composition. But for the most part, 
when we go beyond the face of the record, it is 
simply a matter of guess-work. Ambrose of 
Milan wrote: “ Although all divine Scripture 
breathes the grace of God, yet sweet beyond all 
others is this book of Psalms. History instructs, 
the Law teaches, prophecy announces, rebuke 
chastens, morality persuades; but in the book of 
Psalms we have the fruit of all these, and a 


The Poetical Books 143 


kind of medicine for the salvation of man.” 
Calvin said: “ I am wont to style this book an 
anatomy of all parts of the soul, for no one will 
discover in himself a single feeling whereof the 
image is not reflected in this mirror.” Concern- 
ing the twenty-third psalm, Mr. Beecher said: 
“Tt has charmed more griefs to rest than all 
the philosophy of the world.” 


THE SONG OF SONGS WHICH IS SOLOMON’S 


This song has been the subject of much dis- 
cussion. The opinions of the critics vary, as 
they always do when variation is possible. Dif- 
ferent periods have been contended for as the 
time when this song was written. Many have 
also argued against its right to a place in the 
Canon. The average man is not much con- 
cerned about the matter, for he does not con- 
sider this book as of supreme importance in the 
sacred Canon. It has not appealed to him with 
any special power or helpfulness. It is not pos- 
sible to come to much certainty about the various 
subjects discussed, and the book remains with 
whatever it may contribute to the students of its 
pages. Some question its helpfulness, while 
others deem it an expression of spiritual truth. 


THE WISDOM LITERATURE 


This includes Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. The 
utterances of the prophets partake largely of the 
character of the proverb, but stand in a class by 


144 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


themselves. The tone of the book of Proverbs is 
moral and intellectual rather than distinctively 
religious. This renders it none the less spiritual 
in its force because it is full of the realities of 
life and character in its teachings. Many writers 
doubtless contributed to the collection. One of 
the most striking features of the book is the 
absence of that which is distinctively Jewish. 
Because of this it becomes more readily a uni- 
versal teacher. It deals not with local institu- 
tions nor external ceremonies, but with the real 
life of the individual soul having to do with 
the eternal verities. The book of Ecclesiastes 
breathes much of the same literary atmosphere as 
Proverbs. The time of its composition is un- 
certain. Probably its suggestion of a continuous 
homily on the vanity of human interests explains 
its recognition in a separate form. 


THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS 


This book may be mentioned here. One of 
the interesting results of critical study has been 
the discovery of a great lyric movement among 
the conquered Jews, both at Babylon and else- 
where. Many of the Psalms reflect the atmos- 
phere of captivity, where the great cry is “If I 
forget thee, O Jerusalem!” The note of grief 
appears conspicuous in the book of Lamenta- 
tions, and the captive heart breaks in sorrow, or 
revives in hope of a better day when God’s de- 
liverance shall be revealed. 


XIX 


THE MAJOR PROPHETS 


are classed as the Major and Minor 

Prophets do not demand special consid- 
eration in this study of the subject. Most of 
them are accepted as reflecting the spirit and 
conditions of the time at which the prophet lived 
whose name is connected with the message. 
These men are preeminently God’s spokesmen, 
and not simply, or even fundamentally, foretel- 
lers of future events. Perhaps three of the list 
have engaged the critics in special discussion, 
namely Isaiah, Jonah and Daniel. 


| NOR the most part the sixteen books which 


THE BOOK OF ISAIAH 


In connection with the discussion of this book 
we have a very striking illustration of the dif- 
ference of view maintained by high authorities. 
In the University of Oxford there are two pro- 
fessors, men working side by side in the faculty 
of that great institution, both experts in the de- 
partment of Semitic languages. One is Prof. 
S. R. Driver, Regius Professor of Hebrew, the 
other is Professor D. S. Margoliouth, Laudian 


145 


146 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


Professor of Arabic. Prof. Driver’s Introduc- 
tion is standard in the realm of criticism. In 
that book he favours the view of a dual author- 
ship, not to say plural authorship of the con- 
tents of these sixty-six chapters. More than a 
century ago this theory was put forth by Dr. 
Koppe and was more or less favourably enter- 
tained, until Ewald gave it the distinct impulse 
which abides, though Ewald finds no less than 
seven authors. Dr. Driver accords with the gen- 
eral view which has been prevalent that the first 
thirty-five chapters were written by Isaiah, but 
is convinced that chapters xl-lxvi were written 
by a later author. Those four chapters of his- 
tory, XxXxvi-xxxix, generally identified with the 
first part, do not seem to be involved in the more 
distinctive problem which deals with the two sec- 
tions called more especially prophecy. 

The reader soon discovers certain marks of dif- 
ference between these two parts of the book. The 
first part presents the great enemy of Israel as be- 
ing Assyria, and is largely denunciatory, pictur- 
ing the Messiah as a mighty king and ruler. Part 
second deals with Babylon as Israel’s enemy, is 
largely consolatory, and presents the Messiah as 
a suffering victim, a meek and lowly redeemer. 
There are abundant indications that the book 
is a collection of utterances delivered from time 
to time, the chronological order in the arrange- 
ment appearing throughout. Prof. Driver holds 
that a short section of the early part is written 


The Major Prophets 147 


by an exilic writer; but his main contention is 
that chapters xl-lxvi, must have been written by 
an exilic author. His reasons will be presented 
in a moment. 

It will help us to expedite the presenta- 
tion, if we consider in connection with Dr. 
Driver’s view, that of Prof. Margoliouth. 
The Arabic professor does not agree with the 
Hebrew professor. In his book on Lines of 
Defense of The Biblical Revelation, Prof. Mar- 
goliouth gives the average man reason to pause 
before he accepts the views of the critics. As 
a preliminary suggestion he calls attention to 
the fact that the twelve minor prophets have 
given us about the same amount of material as 
is given in the Book of Isaiah. None of these 
men rank with Isaiah for literary merit, or 
thrills as does Isaiah; yet they are all kept dis- 
tinct. How comes it then that some brilliant 
genius of half of Isaiah is forgotten and un- 
known? This suggestion is of some value, and 
yet it must be remembered that we have impor- 
tant books, like the Epistle to the Hebrews, whose 
author is unknown. 

Prof. Driver holds that we have three inde- 
pendent lines of argument to prove that a later 
author wrote the second part of the book. His 
first argument is from the internal evidence, 
which he claims shows the book to have been 
written at the time of the Babylonian captivity. 
The traditional view is that Isaiah was carried 


148 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


forward by the spirit of prophecy into a vision 
of the future, which is here recorded. But Dr. 
Driver urges that the prophet always spoke pri- 
marily to his own time, and while he sometimes 
looked into the future, his main purpose was to 
bring a lesson to the people of his own time to 
lead them to faithfulness. He claims that this 
section does not predict exile, but presupposes 
it, and mainly promises deliverance. The appear- 
ance of the name of Cyrus is one of the special 
points urged by this school as very strongly pre- 
stumptive against an authorship of an earlier time. 
Moreover reference is to Jerusalem as ruined and 
deserted. 

To this claim Prof. Margoliouth answers 
by pointing out the fact that in the third 
chapter Jerusalem is described as fallen and 
Judah as destroyed. If this be prediction in the 
third chapter, why not in the later section? As 
to the mention of the name of Cyrus, he points 
out that the author of the second section makes 
the particular claim that Jehovah is proving His 
power by predicting the future, and challenging 
other gods to show like ability, as in xlv: 11-19, 
“ Thus saith Jehovah, the holy one of Israel, ask 
me things to come, concerning my sons and con- 
cerning my daughters. . . . I have not spoken 
in secret, in a dark place of the earth . . . 
Let the strange gods shew the things that are to 
come hereafter, that we may know that they are 
gods.” Yet Prof. Driver says this section is not 


The Major Prophets 149 


predictive, while his fellow-professor says that is 
its greatest claim. 

The further fact is pointed out by Prof. 
Margoliouth that the writer, though he uses 
the name of Cyrus, does not show any fa- 
miliarity with Persia. Ezekiel is quite familiar 
with this name, but it is unknown to the second 
Isaiah. Moreover the writer knows the rocks and 
hills, the lakes and rivers, the trees and customs 
of Palestine, but does not give a hint of the plains 
of Babylon. The Arabic professor gives at 
length facts concerning words that appear in the 
first Isaiah, which are also evidently familiar to 
the second Isaiah, but appear nowhere else in the 
Old Testament. It should be noted in passing 
that Dr. Cheyne, another Oxford professor, and 
a radical critic, says: “ Some passages of second 
Isaiah are in various degrees, really favourable 
to the theory of a Palestinian origin.” The fact 
is that this evidence of Palestinian atmosphere 
in the second part of the book has led some later 
critics to hold that it was written in Palestine 
after the writer had returned from Babylon! 

The second argument by Dr. Driver is based 
on the difference of style which he claims exists 
between the two parts of the book. He urges 
this at some length, setting forth different ex- 
pressions, different imagery, etc. But the Arabic 
professor refuses to place the value upon this 
argument which the Hebrew professor would 
urge. He says arguments drawn from language 


150 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


and style are too inconclusive to have scientific 
value. He urges that the same writer, in differ- 
ent periods of his life, may have quite a differ- 
ent style, phrases, methods of thought, etc. He 
then proceeds to show what appear to him indica- 
tions of identity of style in the two parts of the 
book. 

It may also be mentioned that Dr. Cheyne 
allows that the “Great Unknown,” as he 
describes the second Isaiah, often imitated 
Isaiah’s style and knew his prophecies by heart. 
He goes on to argue that unity of style does not 
prove unity of authorship. That is to say, he 
does not urge his view of plural Isaiahs from 
the difference of style, but from the character of 
the contents. Let the reader go carefully over 
these sixty-six chapters, and he will discover just 
as great a variety of style between different parts 
of both the first and second sections as appear 
between the sections themselves. If the evidence 
points to more than one author, it must be 
granted that it justifies six or seven. We cannot 
stop with two, if we need more than one to ex- 
plain the record. We have referred in a former 
chapter to the great differences in style in the 
writings of men well known, as Gladstone and 
Lowell. 

Dr. Driver’s third argument is that the theo- 
logical ideas are very different in the two parts of 
the book. On this point the Arabic professor 
does not dwell; but he shows with striking force 


The Major Prophets 1st 


that the idolatrous practices rebuked by the sec- 
ond Isaiah are pre-exilic rites, not practiced dur- 
ing or after the exile! What significance could 
such rebukes have at a later time, after the ob- 
jectionable practices had ceased? As to different 
theological views, does not the changed condition 
demand it? The earlier period is marked by 
warnings of punishment because of sin, when the 
authority of God as king is insisted upon, and dis- 
obedience to His law threatened with dire penal- 
ties. Yet in both sections of the book, as in all 
the prophets, this warning is followed by prom- 
ises of forgiveness to repentant Israel, and in this 
connection the vision of the great redemption 
finds its starting point in the prophet’s mind. 
Paul has different theological views in different 
letters, simply because he was writing to people 
whose conditions were different. In the writer’s 
judgment it is not especially important that all 
of the book should have been written by one man. 
Therefore it is with no special zeal of opinion that 
the subject is considered. But the simple fact 
remains that there does not seem sufficient evi- 
dence to demand the conviction that Isaiah may 
not have written the substantial contents of the 
entire book which bears his name. 


THE BOOKS OF JEREMIAH AND EZEKIEL 


In former chapters we have mentioned the 
theories of the critics which assign the author- 
ship of Deuteronomy to Jeremiah. There is con- 


152 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


stant evidence that Jeremiah was familiar with 
the contents of Deuteronomy, for the book which 
carries the name of the prophet is full of allusions 
to the last book of the Pentateuch. The discovery 
of that book in the temple explains the fact that 
special attention would be given to it by the 
prophet and the people. Deuteronomy was, so to 
speak, their Bible for the time, and its contents 
were especially adapted to their needs. The stu- 
dent of this material will discover evidences of 
more or less broken character to the record. The 
differences between the Hebrew and the Greek 
texts, later translations, are quite numerous, the 
Greek text being about one-eighth shorter than 
the Hebrew. We are told that when Jehoiakim 
destroyed the roll which Jeremiah had prepared, 
the prophet dictated the substance again to 
Baruch the scribe. This probably forms an ear- 
lier part of the book, and the later sections sug- 
gest periods after the fall of Jerusalem and during 
the exile, as the time of authorship. There is no 
such movement of style and splendour of literary 
mastery here as in Isaiah, though there is dra- 
matic power which makes itself felt. 

The book of Ezekiel presents a mingling of 
history with imagery in such uncertain manner 
as to leave one in doubt as to what is intended to 
be historic, and what symbolic. There is no cri- 
terion by which we can surely distinguish these 
parts. Ezekiel exercised a public ministry among 
his people, beginning previous to the siege of 


The Major Prophets 153 


Jerusalem, and continuing after the fall of the 
city. The news of this calamity crushes the 
exiles, and the stern tone of the prophet in his 
earlier utterances is changed into one of hope 
for restoration. Fresh captives swelled the ranks 
of the exiles, and probably brought the rolls of 
Jeremiah to the Babylonian prophet, for he shows 
the influence of Jeremiah in much of his teach- 
ing. His office of prophet was peculiar, for as 
an exile he seems to have been a sort of pastor 
to his fellow-exiles, and his emphasis of his sense 
of responsibility for his countrymen further sug- 
gests this character of his work. The unity and 
authenticity of his writings have been contested 
by very few critics. The book bears the stamp 
of a single mind, and is arranged in so clear a plan 
that the literary design is apparent. The marvel- 
lous imagination of the man is the most striking 
feature of the book. His dominant teaching was 
the giving to Israel the Messianic hope as a new 
ideal in the nation’s life, and the starting point of 
a new religious development. 


THE BOOK OF DANIEL 


This book is the apocalyptic chapter of the Old 
Testament. There is a distinction between proph- 
ecy and apocalypse. Prophecy had immediate 
bearing on the time, and any picture it might 
present of the future was given as a warning or 
an incentive in view of present conditions. Apoc- 
alypse was this and more. It took on a more 


154 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


sublime suggestion of God’s great plan for the 
future, without so much of immediate connection 
of current events, though not ignoring them. 
Moreover the apocalypse has a symbolism of its 
own, built up by a fancy different from the ordi- 
nary poetic imagination of the prophet, which 
largely draws its figures from nature. The book 
of Daniel abounds in this distinctive symbolism 
of the apocalypse, which involves the nations in 
the great sweep of the world-movement through 
the ages. 

In the writer’s judgment its character points 
to the time of the Captivity for its origin, 
rather than to a later time, for after the return 
to Palestine the nation became more provincial 
than ever, with narrow visions and a more cir-. 
cumscribed life. The book is written in two lan- 
guages, Hebrew and Aramaic. Several explana- 
tions are offered for this unusual fact, but no 
one is satisfactory. Naturally the two languages 
suggest composite authorship, yet the sections of 
language do not coincide with the divisions in the 
thought. It is also claimed that Daniel is of much 
later origin because of the presence of certain 
modern words in the text. There are only eight of 
these words, and Archdeacon Farrar says, “on 
this part of the subject there has been a great deal 
of rash, incompetent assertion.” An interesting 
fact in English literature may serve to throw some 
light on this problem. Chaucer’s Canterbury 
Tales and Piers Ploughman were composed at the 


The Major Prophets 166 


same time. But Chaucer has many modern words 
not found in the other poem. This is because 
Chaucer was at the Court and knew foreign 
words before they came into general use. Just 
so Daniel at Court would know some such words, 
which would not be found in the writings of 
Haggai or Malachi. 

The general theory of the critics is that the 
book of Daniel is not history, but a religious 
novel, written in the Maccabean age. The fact of 
the two languages used is a strong point against 
this theory. It is claimed the writer is describing 
Antiochus Epiphanes under the names of Neb- 
uchadnezzar, Belshazzar and Darius, while Dan- 
iel is the picture of the ideal Jew, who is 
meant to be a reminder of Joseph. But the inci- 
dents fail to justify this theory, for it is based on 
the notion that the book is intended to incite the 
Jews to take up arms against Antiochus. The 
effect of the narrative is just the opposite, lead- 
ing to a passive attitude. Moreover Daniel is not 
the ideal Jew, for he is nowhere concerned about 
the return of his people from captivity. The 
theory of the critics appears to break down. The 
Book of Baruch is clearly borrowed from Daniel, 
and Ewald puts that in the Persian period. Hence 
Daniel must be as early. The abiding inspiration 
of the book is in its uplifting picture of the over- 
ruling hand of the God of nations as He moves 
forward in the realization of His purpose for the 
redemption of His people. 


XX 


THE MINOR PROPHETS 


under the common title The Book of the 

Twelve. The time of the collection and ar- 
rangement of the twelve books is uncertain, 
though indications point to the period between 
300 and 250 B. c. The best discussion of these 
books by a modern critical scholar is found in the 
two volumes from the pen of Dr. George Adam 
Smith. He places Amos about 755 B. c., Hosea 
about 745 and Micah about 722. These three he 
pronounces “in every respect—originality, com- 
prehensiveness, influence upon other prophets— 
the greatest of the twelve.” He follows Micah 
with Zephaniah, Nahum and Habakkuk, placing 
them in the second half of the seventh century, 
B. Cc. Obadiah and Joel he counts of uncertain 
date, though both in their present form seem to 
be late. Jonah is unique and to be placed in a 
class by itself, while Haggai, Zechariah and Mal- 
achi are after the exile. He tells us this arrange- 
ment does not mean that the whole of a book be- 
longs to the date given, or that it was all written 
by the man whose name it bears. He says: 
“Hands have been busy with the texts of the 

156 


I N the Hebrew these twelve books are gathered 


The Minor Prophets 157 


books long after the authors of these must have 
passed away.” But this gives us the substantial 
material of the books identified with the prophets 
whose names they bear. 

Dr. Smith says :—‘ Our Twelve do more than 
carry us from beginning to end of the Prophetic 
Period. Of second rank as are most of the 
heights of this mountain range, they yet bring 
forth and speed on their way not a few of the 
streams of living water which have nourished 
later ages and are flowing to-day. Impetuous 
cataracts of righteousness—let it roll on like 
water, and justice as an everlasting stream; the 
irrepressible love of God to sinful men; the perse- 
verance and pursuits of His grace; His truth that 
goes forth richly upon the heathen; the hope of 
the Saviour of mankind, the outpouring of the 
Spirit; counsels of patience; impulses of tender- 
ness and of healing; melodies innumerable—all 
sprang so strongly that the world hears and feels 
them still.”” When Dr. Smith asserts concerning 
these writings that in the examination of the 
text he may have occasion to suspect some pas- 
sages, and to defend others which seem to him 
unjustly attacked, we realize that here, as else- 
where, Criticism finds difficulties in these books 
which have not yet been solved. 

“The genuineness of the bulk of the Book of 
Amos is not doubted by any critic” is the assur- 
ance of Dr. Smith, and he traces a logical and 
historical development through its chapters. 


158 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


Hosea consists of two sections which differ in 
subject-matter and style. Therefore many critics 
hold to two Hoseas, but Dr. Smith believes in the 
unity of its authorship because, “the historic 
changes in Israel, and therefore the difference of 
occasion and motive, explain fully the altered out- 
look and the altered style.” He shows that in 
both sections “the religious principles are identi- 
cal, and many of the characteristic expressions ; 
while the whole book breathes throughout the 
same urgent and jealous temper which renders 
Hosea’s personality so distinctive among the 
prophets.” 

The date of Micah has been the subject 
of much discussion. It is the opinion of many 
critics that interpolations are found, and breaks 
in the logical sequence, especially of chapters 
iv and v. Says Dr. Smith: “ We ought not to 
overlook the remarkable fact that those who have 
recently written the fullest monographs on Micah 
incline to believe in the genuineness of the book 
as a whole.” He specifies Wildeboer, Von Ryssel 
and Elhorst, and declares Cheyne to be incorrect 
in asserting that it is “ becoming more and more 
doubtful whether more than two or three frag- 
ments of the heterogeneous collection of frag- 
ments in chapters iv-vii can have come from 
that prophet.” Dr. Smith then argues at some 
length for the substantial unity of the book as 
probably written by Micah. 

The remaining nine prophets present many 


The Minor Prophets 159 


difficulties to critical scholarship. Questions of 
integrity and related problems arise, but the criti- 
cal and textual value of these books is not so 
great as the historical. They present a develop- 
ment of Hebrew prophecy of notable interest. 
We see in them “the spirit and style of classic 
prophecy of Israel gradually dissolving into other 
forms of religious thought and feeling.” The 
reader is referred to Dr. Smith’s discussion of 
these subjects. Special mention is here made of 
his reference to Jonah. He says: “In the Book 
of Jonah, though it is parable and not history, we 
see a great recovery and expansion of the best 
elements of prophecy. God’s character and Is- 
rael’s true mission to the world are revealed in 
the spirit of Hosea, and of the Seer of the Exile, 
with much of the tenderness, the insight, the 
analysis of character and even the humour of 
classic prophecy. These qualities raise the Book 
of Jonah, though it is probably the last of the 
twelve, to the highest rank among them. No book 
is more worthy to stand by the side of Isaiah 
xl-lv; none is nearer in spirit to the New Tes- 
tament.” The query arises as to whether these 
superior qualities in the book of Jonah do not 
point to an earlier time for its authorship than 
Dr. Smith believes. It gives evidence of later 
touches in its present form, but it breathes a 
different atmosphere from that of the other 
prophets of the post-exilic period. 

The question as to how much of the prophetic 


160 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


material is to be considered history, and how 
much parable or allegory, naturally arises here. 
The student of the prophetic writings must be 
impressed by the fact that much of the utterance 
of almost every prophet, as notably Ezekiel, is 
a vision, with its evident lesson, or a parable with 
its application, as in Isaiah vy. There are reasons 
for thinking the book of Jonah is a parable. The 
usual marks of Old Testament history are not 
fully present. As when Christ pictured a man 
going down to Jericho, with priest and Samari- 
tan figuring in the story; so it is possible to con- 
sider this picture of the prophet to Nineveh, with 
its lesson mainly for Israel, to bring the chosen 
people to repentance. 

Yet there is something to be said in favour 
of the historicity of the book. It breathes 
an atmosphere of action, and though its 
scenes are very dramatic and in quick suc- 
cession, yet if the time of Jonah be fixed during 
the reign of Jeroboam II, as in 2 Kings xiv, as 
suggested by the statement that he was the son 
of Amittai, then the atmosphere of that “ miracle 
period” is as natural to his activity as to that of 
Elijah or Elisha. Christ’s reference to the ex- 
perience of Jonah and to the repentance of Nine- 
veh rather go to show something more than a 
parable here, whatever we may say about His 
custom of using Old Testament material. It 
is impossible, however, to prove either position, 
and it is not vital to the lesson of the book to 


The Minor Prophets 161 


do so. The message of the book cannot be mis- 
taken, as it sets forth, to use the words of Dr. 
Smith, “ God’s character and Israel’s true mis- 
sion to the world.” Especially here do we be- 
hold the glory of the divine mercy shining forth. 


XXI 


THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 


A S we approach the New Testament, the 


average man increases his desire to be 
cautious. He is convinced that no es- 
sential to the Evangelical faith can be shaken, 
and will not patiently listen to unwarranted hy- 
potheses involving the very foundations of the 
Christian faith. He is strengthened in his con- 
viction by the history of recent discussion regard- 
ing New Testament material. In the year 1835 
David Frederick Strauss put forth his mythical 
theory concerning the Gospels. He denied the 
supernatural, argued that the Gospels were le- 
gendary, and that the account of Jesus came from 
the pious conceptions of early Christians who 
thus pictured their ideal. The theory startled 
Christendom, but set men to examining into the 
origin of the Gospels. Criticism turned to the 
New Testament to study both its authenticity and 
its literary character. The history of Christian- 
ity was traced up the stream to its fountain head, 
bringing the Gospel material into the first cen- 
tury, and some of the letters of Paul to a time 
within twenty-five years of the life of Christ. 
Moreover the historic value of the Gospels was 
162 


The Synoptic Gospels 163 


brought the more clearly to the light in the em- 
phasis of the fact that in them Christ is not de- 
scribed, but portrayed. They do not tell us that 
His words and deeds were grand and splendid; 
but they simply record what He said and did, 
and we at once realize the sublime, the divine 
character of it all. Now either Christ said these 
things, or the Gospel writers must have been 
able to originate His teachings. In Greek phil- 
osophy either Socrates spoke the words which 
Plato reports, or Plato himself was as great as 
Socrates is represented. But who could have 
conceived of the teachings of Jesus in His time? 
Not a Pharisee, whose conception of religion He 
condemned. Not a Sadducee who denied the 
resurrection. Not an Essene with his ascetic no- 
tions. Not the uneducated fishermen of Galilee. 
No! the face of the record reveals the power of 
the truth in a plain simple narrative of what 
Jesus said and did. It portrays a sinless, match- 
less life, the manifestation of God in the flesh. 
This is the verdict of Christendom. The theory 
of Strauss is dead and buried. 

But Strauss gave an impulse to critical study 
which developed through Bauer and the Tiiben- 
gen school to the later critics in Germany and 
England. These men steadily pressed back to 
the historic facts, and sought to ascertain the 
real historic value of the material. Earlier 
scholarship, with scholastic method, had dealt in 
the main with philosophical and theological ques- 


164 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


tions about the person of Christ, and other doc- 
trinal themes, but the new Criticism examined the 
sources of the record itself. As the work went 
on, the personal Christ became more manifestly 
the explanation of all that was preeminent in the 
Apostolic age. In his scholarly book The Place 
of Christ in Modern Theology, Dr. Fairbairn 
says: “ The life is a most manifest effect, exist- 
ent in all the apostles, creating a new literary 
capability, a new ethical, social, religious spirit, 
a society of brother missionaries, possessed of the 
enthusiasm to heal and save. And once thought 
enters into the meaning of this new life and its 
value for humanity, it is forced back on its cause, 
and compelled to see that without Christ the 
greatest movement in history has neither a be- 
ginning nor an end.” The fact of Christ was 
recognized. The question then was—What are 
the facts about Christ? 

The material containing the record of these 
facts is conceded to be mainly in the three synop- 
tic Gospels. The historic value of John’s Gospel 
will be considered separately. It is much later 
than the other three. When we approach the 
theories of the critics regarding the synoptic 
records, a word of warning must be raised 
against the work presented in the new Encyclo- 
pedia Biblica published under the general super- 
vision of Dr. Cheyne. It is likely to command 
wide attention, as it will assume to be an au- 
thority on the subject. But its criticism of the 


The Synoptic Gospels 165 


Gospels is so very extreme as to leave no hope 
that men will have any fair idea of the various 
views held by scholars on the subject. 

The two writers are Dr. E. A. Abbott, whose 
sphere is the “descriptive and analytical,’ and 
Dr. Schmiedel, of Zurich, who deals with the 
“historical and synthetical.” Dr. Abbott says 
Matthew’s account of the resurrection has been 
modified by later writers “ so as to soften some of 
its improbabilities.” He claims that the omission 
by the other evangelists of the account of the 
healing of the ear of Malchus, recorded by Luke, 
is “almost fatal to its authenticity,” and he ex- 
plains it by a corruption of the text which trans- 
forms the replacing of the sword into a replac- 
ing of the ear! He thinks many of the miracles 
connected with raising of the dead are “very 
early exaggerations arising from misunderstood 
metaphor,” and finds himself obliged to pro- 
nounce the raising of the son of the widow of 
Nain as “ non-historical,’’ while the record of the 
resurrection of Lazarus is “mainly allegorical.” 

Dr. Schmiedel is even more radical and de- 
structive. He says he does not start with “the 
postulate or axiom that miracles are impossible,” 
but he offers the opinion that “ some doubts as to 
the accuracy of the miraculous cannot fail to 
arise in the mind of even the strongest believer 
in miracles.”” He claims that these alleged con- 
tradictions “show only too clearly with what 
lack of concern for historical precision the evan- 


166 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


gelists wrote.” He develops the theory that all 
the post-resurrection appearances were visions 
like that of Paul, and in many other views he 
practically destroys the ground for the evangel- 
ical faith in the Gospels. 

In reviewing this article, Principal Fair- 
bairn says: “Dr. Abbott proves himself a 
sort of modern highly erudite and skeptical 
Talmudist; while Schmiedel, whose articles 
are amazingly clever and even brilliant, shows 
himself a hard and dry, yet almost a fierce 
and truculent rationalist.” He further says of 
Schmiedel that one feels “ the wonderful absence 
of historical Criticism, as qualifying his literary. 
It is marvellous to us that he so little grasps the 
movement of events or reads his documents in 
relation to them. All this is the easiest and 
flimsiest of historical Criticism; violent in its 
exegesis, arbitrary in its selection of its founda- 
tion pillars, and impossible of application to the 
history it despises.” When a man like Dr. Fair- 
bairn, who is open-minded and sympathetic to- 
ward the critical movement, is compelled to use 
such denunciatory words concerning this latest 
product of Criticism, the average man naturally 
concludes that the extreme critics will always be 
repudiated by even the most liberal Evangelical 
Christians, and finds his confidence strengthened 
by this assurance. 

The general theory of the Evangelical critics 
regarding the three synoptic Gospels is presen- 


The Synoptic Gospels 167 


ted admirably by Dr. McGiffert in The Apostolic 
Age. In substantial agreement with his state- 
ment is that of Dr. Bruce in The Expositor’s 
Greek Testament. The earliest records of 
Christ’s teachings were contained in the so-called 
Logia, or sayings of Jesus. The first writer to 
mention them is Papias of Hierapolis, a writer 
of the early second century. Eusebius, the 
Church historian, our best authority on the pa- 
tristic writings, tells us that Papias records that 
“Matthew composed the Logia in the Hebrew 
language, and every one interpreted them as best 
he could.” Dr. McGiffert says: “It is clear that 
they were intended primarily for disciples of 
Jewish birth, and more particularly for residents 
of Palestine.” And he adds: “ They were known 
and used at an early day by those also whose 
every day speech was Greek. Papias tells us 
that every one interpreted them as best he could. 
But it could not be long after they had made 
their way into the Greek speaking world before 
Greek translations of them were put into writing 
for the use of those who knew no Hebrew, and 
who were unable to interpret them for them- 
selves.” 

He continues: “It is hardly to be sup- 
posed that no other collections of Christ’s words 
were made than the Logia of Matthew. It is 
probable that Luke used another source than 
the Logia in chapters iv-xvii of his Gospel, 
and that he drew from it, for instance, the par- 


168 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


ables of the Good Samaritan, the foolish rich 
man, the prodigal son, the unrighteous steward, 
Dives and Lazarus, the unjust judge, and the 
Pharisee and Publican. Most of these parables 
bear a common character which distinguishes 
them from those recorded in the Logia, and 
which points to a compiler of a somewhat broader 
spirit and more humanistic temper than Mat- 
thew; to one who belonged in fact to another 
circle, and was in touch with mission work in 
the world at large.” 

Dr. McGiffert, here as elsewhere, keeps in 
mind certain facts which do not seem to have so 
much place in the work of many critics. In a 
valuable little book Why Four Gospels? Dr. D. 
S. Gregory presents a series of these suggestive 
facts which are very instructive. He reminds 
us that the spread of Christianity was from three 
main centres—Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome, 
where the Gospel was preached to the Jews, 
Greeks and Romans. Naturally the predilec- 
tions, education and national traits of these three 
types of people would have much to do with 
giving special emphasis upon different parts of 
the Gospel story. Matthew’s record is a perma- 
nent report of the way the Gospel was generally 
preached to the Jews. Its key note is the ful- 
fillment of prophecy. Its teachings are espe- 
cially adapted to the Jews, and several of these 
do not appear in Mark or Luke, whose readers 
would not respond to them as would the Jews. 


The Synoptic Gospels 169 


Matthew contains no explanation of Hebrew 
words or Jewish customs, or comments upon 
Jewish geography, while all three of the other 
Gospels contain these for people not familiar with 
Jerusalem and Palestine. 

The key note of Mark is power. His 
record has a very small amount of Christ’s 
teaching, but throbs with energy in the rec- 
ord of His deeds. The spirit of the Roman is 
in mind as the narrative moves forward. It is 
the Roman centurion at the cross who is re- 
ported only by Mark as exclaiming “ Truly this 
man was the Son of God!” Luke, as Dr. Mc- 
Giffert points out, has much material not found 
in either of the other two. His dominant tone 
is the broader humanity of the Greeks. Divide 
Luke into one hundred parts, and only forty-one 
parts are in common with the other Gospels, 
while fifty-nine parts are peculiar to itself. Luke 
gives us the only specific account of the Perean 
ministry. 

Now all this points not only to a degree of in- 
dependence in authorship not recognized by 
many critics, but points as well to an original 
purpose in each Gospel which gives it a unity and 
value too little appreciated. The oral Gospel, re- 
peated through twenty or thirty years, must have 
become crystallized into familiar forms of state- 
ments, aside from any written reports, and 
marked by distinctive colourings in the different 
sections of the world where it was preached. 


170 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


These differences are so marked that we cannot 
overlook them, and they demand consideration in 
the study of their historic value. The differences 
in the three records only strengthen their his- 
toric validity in the light of their local settings, 
and the reader discovers the fulness of the ac- 
count only as he combines all three of them, and 
appreciates that they are not contradictory, but 
supplementary. 

When Luke presents a different version 
of the Lord’s Prayer, for instance, it in- 
dicates that he did not have the same source 
that Matthew used, but that he had received the 
truth from reliable tradition, whether spoken or 
written, for the same truth is preserved, though 
the exact words are not used. The theory that 
Mark was the foundation of the records, and 
that Matthew and Luke both built on Mark, 
may or may not be correct. There are evidences, 
such as these suggested, pointing to an inde- 
pendent record in each case, gathered from the 
same general sources perhaps, but by no means 
certainly dependent on Mark or the Logia of 
Matthew. The great fact to be emphasized is 
that critical scholarship is practically agreed in 
fixing the historical material in the second half 
of the first century, where we have it much 
nearer to the time of Christ than we now are to 
the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 
The historic basis for our Gospel of Jesus Christ 
is forever established. 


XXII 


THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 


HE book of the Acts of The Apostles is 
the Index to the development of the 


Christian Church during the apostolic 
age. Along the lines there briefly indicated the 
work was carried on. Much ground is traversed, 
but there is sufficient statement to explain the 
cardinal facts in the history, especially when we 
consider the additional light furnished in the 
several apostolic epistles, most of which were 
probably written before this record was pre- 
pared. One opinion prevailed in the early Church 
regarding the authorship, namely that Luke the 
writer of the third Gospel was the author of this 
book. This view is still maintained by a large 
majority of leading critics. Some however do 
not believe the author was the companion of 
Paul, and among these is Dr. McGiffert. His 
teasons do not seem very conclusive, and illus- 
trate his method at times, to the disappointment 
of the average man. 

Dr. McGiffert says the supposition that the 
writer was a companion of Paul is “beset with 
serious difficulties, for the knowledge of events 
displayed by the author is less accurate and com- 

171 


172 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


plete than might be expected in one who had 
been personally associated for any length of 
time with Paul himself.” . . . “ His work 
betrays a lack of knowledge concerning the 
latter part of Paul’s career, during which 
the author of the “we” passages must have 
been intimately associated with him, at least a 
part of the time; and certain critical periods in 
Paul’s life are treated as we should hardly ex- 
pect them to be by one of his own companions. 
It seems therefore necessary to conclude that the 
author of the Acts was not identical with the 
eyewitness who appears in certain parts of the 
book.” 

When we discover the reason for Dr. McGif- 
fert’s opinion to be his disappointment in not 
finding what he would expect a companion of 
Paul to write, and that this or that account is not 
satisfactory to him, we wonder who shall say 
what ought to be expected of Paul’s companion. 
Who shall assume that he ought to have dwelt 
more fully upon certain parts of Paul’s career? 
Who is to decide what the New Testament ought 
to contain? Dr. George T. Purves, in his little 
book The Apostolic Age, says: “ The objection 
that a companion of Paul ought to have given 
fuller information, and that he even shows igno- 
rance of much that such a man would have 
known, proceeds on an arbitrary assumption con- 
cerning what Luke would be likely to record, 
and a failure to appreciate the plan and purpose 


The Acts of the Apostles 173 


of the book.” Renan asserts it to be “ beyond 
doubt that this author is in very deed Luke the 
disciple of Paul.” Both Professors Ramsay and 
Blass hold to this view, together with many 
others. 

Certain facts go to prove the reasonable- 
ness of this view. In four passages the writer 
represents himself as the companion of Paul. 
The phraseology of these sections is in many re- 
spects common to that employed in the rest of 
the book. Sir J. Hawkins specifies seventeen 
words and phrases which appear in both the 
“we” passages and in the rest of the Acts, but 
nowhere else in the New Testament. He also 
points out twenty-seven words and phrases found 
in the “we” passages and in Luke’s Gospel, 
with or without the rest of the Acts. Those who 
deny the identity of authorship must account for 
this similarity of style, and also for the appear- 
ance of the “we” passages at all. For if the 
writer of the rest of the book had wished to ap- 
pear a companion of Paul, he would not have in- 
serted the “ we” only at these four points. The 
German philologist, Vogel, states the common 
sense view of the matter when he says that when 
a writer with the skill which is manifest in this 
book passes from the third to the first person 
in his narrative, every unprejudiced reader will 
explain it on the ground that the author thus 
wished modestly to intimate his own personal 
presence during certain events. Another fact is 


174 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


that the writer was so familiar with his facts that 
he did not feel any need of using the epistles 
of Paul, for Acts is written independently of 
those epistles, though most of them were avail- 
able. 

This fact suggests the probable time of the 
authorship of the Acts. The author stood suf- 
ficiently near to Paul’s time to write without 
drawing upon the Pauline epistles. Dr. McGif- 
fert would place the time of the authorship as 
late as the beginning of the second century. But 
his teacher, Prof. Harnack, brings the date down 
to about the year 80, and that time is generally 
accepted by the majority of scholars. It is 
reasonable to hold that the date must be placed 
after the fall of Jerusalem, as the references to 
that event by Luke’s Gospel would indicate that 
it was past, and the Acts must be placed some 
years later. In Matthew xxiv:15, we read: 
“When ye shall see the abomination of desola- 
tion, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in 
the holy place,” etc. But in Luke xxi: 20, we 
read: “ When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed 
with armies, then know that the desolation 
thereof is nigh.” Here the reasonable inference 
is that Luke’s record reads in the light of ac- 
complished history, so that the third Gospel 
would be placed about the year 7o or a little 
later, and Acts may reasonably be assigned to 
about 80. There are a few critics who have at- 
tempted to point out specific sources for this 


The Acts of the Apostles 175 


book, but their efforts are most unsatisfactory. 
We can only surmise as to Luke’s sources of in- 
formation regarding those items in the record 
beyond his personal knowledge. 

As to the historic value of the book it will suf- 
fice to quote from Prof. Ramsay who writes in 
Recent Research in Bible Lands regarding Paul’s 
missionary journeys: “It has already ceased to 
be possible for a rational criticism to maintain 
that the narrative of these journeys is a free 
second-century composition; and it is rapidly 
ceasing to be possible to regard it as a series of 
first-century scraps, pieced together by a second- 
century compiler for his own purposes. Only a 
narrative written with full mastery by an eye- 
witness, or by one who was in communication 
with eyewitnesses, and able to use their accounts 
with delicate precision could stand the minute 
study that is now demanded and applied. It is 
not a new discovery that the perplexing variety 
of titles for governors and magistrates of cities 
is correct in every case throughout the book; but 
it is now becoming far clearer than before that 
the duties, powers, and character of the officials 
are all correctly delineated. Recent discoveries 
are enabling us to conceive precisely what these 
officials were in actual life; and each new step 
in our knowledge only makes the narrative of 
Acts more luminous.” . . . “ The very language 
of Acts is that of a person who had travelled in 
the country, and not one who had gathered his 


176 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


knowledge from books.” Thus we rest in the 
trustworthy account of the steps by which the 
Christian Church was established and developed. 

In connection with this account in the Acts 
of the early history of the Christian Church, we 
must consider the conspicuous fact which has 
figured so largely in the critical discussions of 
New Testament problems: namely the difference 
which marked the two great tendencies in the 
church, the Judaistic and the universal. The 
first colouring of the Christian thought and life 
was Jewish. The primary message was that 
Jesus was the Messiah. The first Christians were 
Jews who never thought of departing from their 
ancient customs. Yet their Christianity placed 
them into a new class of Jews. They recognized 
the Jewish law as still binding upon them. But 
their emphasis of the resurrection of Jesus de- 
veloped an opposition on the part of the Sad- 
ducees, who denied the resurrection. The ston- 
ing of Stephen marked the outbreak of the spirit 
of persecution, which was followed by the dis- 
persion. The awakening of the missionary spirit 
was intensified, as it was evident that the gift of 
the Holy Spirit was bestowed upon Samaritans 
and Gentiles, as well as Jews. 

When Cornelius was received into the 
Church, being neither Jew nor proselyte, the 
need of a future policy became imperative. 
Could Gentiles be Christians without going 
through the door of Judaism? This was 


The Acts of the Apostles 177 


the great question. Meanwhile Paul had been 
converted, and was preaching the Gospel to 
the Gentiles with great results. The apostles 
recognized Gentiles as Christians because of the 
gift of the Holy Spirit, but did not allow that 
Jewish Christians could violate any Jewish law, 
for instance, to eat with a Gentile, though both 
were Christians. At Antioch, where “the dis- 
ciples were first called Christians,” the uncircum- 
cised Christians could not be allowed to fellow- 
ship with the Jews. The seriousness of this 
situation is at once apparent. 

The process of emancipation into the true 
liberty of the Gospel came slowly, and mainly 
through the instrumentality of Paul. Paul was 
the most cosmopolitan Christian of the first gen- 
eration of followers of Christ. He was a Jew 
who was a Roman citizen living in a Greek city. 
He could not well be provincial, yet he was an 
intense Jew, as his first contact with Christianity, 
as a persecutor, bore witness. His conversion 
was most thoroughgoing. The whole man was 
in all he did before and after. Concerning this 
vital experience of the apostle, Dr. McGiffert, in 
a passage of great power, says: “ It is clear from 
Rom. vii: 7, sq., that, zealous as Paul was in the 
observance of the Jewish law, and blameless as 
his conduct was when measured by an external 
standard, he had become conscious that all his 
efforts to attain to righteousness were a complete 
failure. This consciousness was evidently the re- 


178 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


sult of his perception of the fact, which was en- 
tirely overlooked by the majority of his contem- 
poraries, and may have been long overlooked by 
Paul himself, that inner, as well as outer sins, 
sins of heart as well as of deed, were forbidden by 
the law; that the tenth commandment made 
covetousness and lust a crime, even though the 
lust or the covetousness never manifested itself 
in acts of sensuality or of dishonesty.” 

“That Paul, trained as he was in the 
superficial, legal conceptions of the Pharisees 
of his day, should have recognized this fact, 
is a mark of the profoundness of his ethical 
nature, and distinguishes him from most of 
his fellows. Only a great religious genius 
could thus have penetrated beneath the husk 
of formality to the vital kernel within. It 
is clear that he was no ordinary Pharisee. 
The condemnation which Jesus passed upon 
the Pharisees as a class could not have been 
pronounced upon him. Even though a 
Pharisee, he was a man after Christ’s own heart. 
Though he apparently knew nothing as yet about 
Jesus’s teaching, he had reached the principle of 
which Jesus had made so much, that all external 
observance of the law is worthless unless it be 
based upon the obedience of the heart.” 

After discussing Paul’s struggle, and his dual- 
istic ideas regarding the flesh and the spirit, 
leading up to his appreciation of the deliverance 
which is in Christ, Dr. McGiffert continues: 


The Acts of the Apostles 179 


“But how was the action of the Messiah to 
effect that deliverance of which Paul thus felt 
assured? It was in answering this question that 
Paul departed most widely from the thought of 
all his predecessors and contemporaries; that he 
showed himself almost independent of outside 
influence and revealed most clearly his religious 
individuality and originality. Christ saves a 
man, he says, by entering and taking up His 
abode within him, by binding him indissolubly 
to Himself, so that it is no longer he that lives, 
but Christ that lives in him, so that whatever 
Christ does, he does, and whatever he does 
Christ does. 

“Tohave believed that the work of Christ 
was only substitutionary in its significance; 
to have believed that there was only an arbitrary 
and forensic connection between the work of 
Christ and the salvation of men, would have been 
to do violence to his most sacred convictions, 
and to run counter to all his religious expe- 
rience. . . . To this experience he gives clear 
and vivid expression in such striking utterances 
as the following: ‘ When it pleased God to re- 
veal His Son (not to me, but) in me;’ ‘I have 
been crucified with Christ, yet I live; and yet no 
longer I, but Christ liveth in me;’ ‘God sent 
forth the spirit of His Son into our hearts;’ ‘If 
Christ is in you, the body is dead because of 
sin; but the spirit is life because of righteous- 
ness.’ ” 


180 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


1 
This conception of Paul’s personal experience 


throws light upon his whole attitude toward the 
law and ceremonial as related to the follower of 
Christ, as emphasized in his letters to the Romans 
and Galatians. The law serves to reveal a man’s 
sin. He dies, not because he has broken a law, 
but because he is sinful. In Christ he dies to 
sin, and in the risen Christ he enters into a new- 
ness of life, in which he is no longer under law, 
but in the Spirit of Christ under a perfect law 
of liberty. It inevitably followed upon all this 
that Paul could no longer hold to a difference 
between circumcision and uncircumcision in 
Christ. Jew and Gentile, Greek and barbarian 
are all one in Christ. Paul’s contention with 
Peter at Antioch, because Peter had entered into 
the larger truth, only to yield it at the behest of 
narrow Judaizers, was the consistent contention 
of one who had come to see clearly that the old 
forms had no longer an essential place for the 
Christian. As has been said, this twofold tend- 
ency was in the Church, and it became largely a 
Pauline and anti-Pauline controversy. Paul’s 
apostleship was sometimes challenged by those 
who opposed him; but he, standing unflinchingly 
for his position, maintained it victoriously unto 
the end. The marks of this difference of view 
are found in the New Testament writings, and 
are often held to be important in helping to de- 
termine questions of authorship and date. It is 
a most instructive picture of the progress of the 
emancipating truth, 


XXIII 


THE WRITINGS OF JAMES, PETER AND JUDE 


HE twenty-seven books now composing 
; the New Testament were officially rec- 
ognized as the authoritative Canon at 
the Council of Laodicea in the year 363. But 
the Canon was really fixed before that date. 
These books had gravitated together by virtue of 
their inherent divine authority, and their limited 
number was fixed by the response of the Church 
to the evidence of divine inspiration. Some apoc- 
ryphal books were frequently used with approval, 
but it is significant that at no time did the whole 
Church ever recognize as authoritative Scriptures 
any other books than those now found in the 
New Testament. The difference in the atmos- 
phere is marked as one passes from an apocryphal 
writing to one of these productions, even in the 
two or three instances where there was some 
hesitation about their right to a place in the 
Canon. Thus these twenty-seven books have be- 
come the accepted true deposit of the divine 
revelation. There is no reason to believe that 
any facts will ever come to light to disturb their 
place in the Canon. 
A very wide spread opinion would place the 
181 


182 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


Epistle of James as the earliest of these writings. 
There are those indeed who hold to its late au- 
thorship. Dr. McGiffert gives the reasons for 
advocating a late date to be (1) the extreme 
worldliness of those addressed, which seems to 
indicate a lapse of time since their conversion; 
and (2) the passage on faith and works which 
apparently presupposes the teaching of Paul, and 
the wide-spread abuse of that teaching. Against 
the assumption that James the brother of Jesus 
wrote the epistle he argues because of its re- 
markable silence about Jesus. ‘“ The ethical tone 
and standard of the work are noble and inspir- 
ing, and in many respects closely allied to the 
teaching of Jesus; but it is not easy to under- 
stand, and it is not altogether agreeable to con- 
template the fact that a man who knew Jesus 
intimately should show no trace of the influence 
of the Master’s wonderful personality.” 

Many scholars, however, urge an early date for 
the epistle on the grounds: (1) that it presents a 
very slight line between Judaism and Christian- 
ity. (2) It is marked by an absence of definite 
Christian phraseology. (3) There is an ab- 
sence of dogmatic teaching, such as marks the 
letters of Paul and John. (4) There is no ref- 
erence whatever to Gentile Christianity. It was 
written only to Christians who were Jews, and 
points to a time previous to the Council at Je- 
rusalem. As to the discussion of faith and 
works, Paul’s is more elaborate, which is an in- 


The Writings of James, Peter and Jude 183 


dication that James wrote first. The supposed 
contradiction between these two apostles has 
long since been shown to be imaginary. The ref- 
erences to Christ in i:1, ii: 1, and v:8 are all 
of such worshipful character as to indicate a full 
appreciation of the “ wonderful personality ” of 
the Master. The subject does not call for such 
mention of Christ’s teaching as might be nat- 
urally demanded by other themes. On _ the 
whole, the general opinion which attributes the 
letter to James, and considers it one of the 
earliest of the New Testament writings, would 
seem to be sustained. 

The First Epistle of Peter is also marked by 
what may be called a practical purpose, rather 
than the intention to set forth any special theo- 
logical teaching. He is writing for the en- 
couragement and inspiration of those who are 
enduring persecution, and his watch-word is 
hope. James iv:6 is exactly quoted in 1 Peter 
v:5, indicating acquaintance with the former. 
Moreover many of Paul’s characteristic expres- 
sions appear, as “having been begotten again, 
not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,” and 
“Who his own self carried our sins in his body 
up to the tree, that we, having died unto sins, 
might live unto righteousness.” The writer de- 
scribes himself as “ Peter, an apostle of Jesus 
Christ,” and the epistle is marked by many ex- 
pressions which recall the words of Christ Him- 
self, suggesting a personal contact with the 


184 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


Master. There is also an occasional resemblance 
between the language of the epistle and that 
found in Peter’s sermons recorded in the Acts. 
Some of these are uncommon words, as when 
Peter speaks of the cross as the tree, both in the 
epistle and the sermon. His words are forcible, 
but simple and direct. He assimilates Old Tes- 
tament thought, without caring to quote accu- 
rately. 

The resemblance to Paul’s style and thought 
has been urged against the Petrine author- 
ship; but there is decided originality, aside 
from any colouring which reveals familiarity 
with the teachings of other apostles. There are 
about sixty words peculiar to the epistle, which 
indicates marked originality. In writing to those 
who had been especially under the influence of 
Paul, Peter most wisely incorporated much of 
the familiar teaching of that apostle. The salu- 
tation and tone of the letter would indicate that 
Peter had passed beyond the narrower Jewish 
view of the Gentile Christians, and included all 
followers of Christ in his thought as he wrote. 
The fact that the letter knows of persecutions 
would tend to fix the time of writing about the 
beginning of the period of those trying expe- 
riences, which would lead us to conclude that it 
was not written earlier than the year 65. The 
reference to Babylon in v:13 has by many been 
deemed metaphorical, and it is held that the 


The Writings of James, Peter and Jude 185 


apostle meant to describe Rome by the term. 
It is a matter of uncertainty, and not important. 

When we turn to the Second Epistle of Peter, 
we find many critics convinced that it is not the 
writing of the apostle. Eusebius testifies: “ One 
epistle of Peter, which is called the First, is ac- 
cepted ; and this the presbyters of old have used 
in their writings as undoubted. But that which 
is circulated as his Second Epistle we have re- 
ceived to be not canonical. Nevertheless, as it 
appeared to many to be useful, it has been dili- 
gently read with the other Scriptures.” There 
are no direct quotations from this epistle in the 
Christian writings of the first two centuries. 
Yet Clement of Rome, writing about I00, seems 
to refer to it when he says: “ Let that Scripture 
be far from us which says, These things we 
heard in the time of our fathers, and behold we 
have grown old, and none of these things has 
happened to us.” The reference would seem to 
be to 2 Pet. iti: 4. 

After the time of Eusebius the  epistle 
seems to have been generally received. Je- 
rome included it in his Latin translation, while 
seeming somewhat doubtful about it; but after 
his time it was generally accepted, and found its 
place in the Canon at Laodicea. The following 
points are urged against its genuineness: (1) 
That the writer labours unnaturally to identify 
himself with the apostle. (2) The reference to 


186 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


Paul in iii: 15-16 is not what would be expected 
from Peter. (3) There are striking differences 
between the two letters, both in style and 
thought. (4) The relation between the second 
chapter and the Epistle of Jude is perplexing, 
and suggests doubts as to the apostolic authority 
of the authors. (5) The resemblance between 
this letter and certain passages in Josephus is so 
close as to show that the writer must have been 
acquainted with works not published until after 
Peter was dead. 

It may be said regarding these objections: 
That had the writer been an imitator, he would 
have used exactly the words used in the first 
epistle instead of the fuller title used here. A 
man uses his own name with freedom, some- 
times writes his initials, sometimes the full name. 
The writer refers to this as his “ second epistle,” 
asserts that he was a witness of the Transfigura- 
tion, and refers to Christ’s conversation recorded 
in John xxi: 18-19. As to the improbability of 
his endorsing the teachings of Paul, we may 
simply ask—Why not? If, as was suggested, he 
was writing to many who had been especially in- 
fluenced by Paul, it was a very wise thing to do. 
There may have been very good reasons for do- 
ing so, which are not known to us. As to dif- 
ference of style, it is apparent. There are more 
rare words than in the first epistle, though they 
abound in both. The second letter is less He- 
braistic and better Greek. But it may be said the 


The Writings of James, Peter and Jude 187 


second letter gives evidence of being more hastily 
composed than the first. The writer had heard 
of the false teachers, who were already doing 
their injurious work in Asia Minor. Possibly 
the letter of Jude had come to his hand, and 
fired him to write in similar strain, embodying 
much of it in his own message. This is certainly 
possible, if not probable. It is quite probable 
that Peter came to be more proficient in Greek 
during the years that elapsed between his first 
letter and this one. 

But while there are differences, there are many 
points of resemblance. There are fifty-eight un- 
common words in the first epistle and forty-eight 
in the second. A writer attempting to imitate 
would probably have used many of these words 
in the second letter. But we have a number of 
words and phrases here which are found in the 
first epistle and also in the speeches of Peter 
recorded in the Acts. As to the difference in 
thought, it explains something of the difference 
in style. The key-note of the first letter is hope, 
while that of the second is knowledge. The sup- 
posed knowledge of Josephus, urged by some, is 
based on the appearance of a few words in Second 
Peter which are found in Josephus. But some 
of these same words are in First Peter and in 
some of the writings of Paul, indicating that they 
were in common use before Josephus. It must 
further be emphasized that if this had been a sec- 
ond-century writing it would probably have given 


188 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


more evidence of knowledge of the heresies of 
that time. After all has been said, there remains 
in this epistle a beauty and power found in no 
writing of the second century. Those writings 
are valuable, but here there is that indescribable 
touch of inspiration which breathes the presence 
and power of the Holy Spirit not felt in the writ- 
ings not contained in the sacred Canon. 

The Epistle of Jude, as already noted, is much 
like the second chapter of Second Peter. We 
have already indicated that it was older in its 
composition. Jude’s epistle is the more original, 
while Peter’s use of the material suggests the 
quotation of the stronger statement of Jude. 
This epistle is the most unique in the New Testa- 
ment. Hebrew phrases and idioms betray the 
Jewish standpoint of the writer. It combines 
features of Old Testament prophecy with those 
of Jewish apocalyptic literature. It contains 
items unlike anything else in the Canon. Its 
style is bold and picturesque, broken and rugged. 
The titles of the book are very different in dif- 
ferent manuscripts. The writer of the epistle 
nowhere calls himself an apostle, or hints at 
such a thing. He rather indicates that he is not 
in verse 17, where he refers to “the words 
which have been spoken before by the apostles of 
our Lord Jesus Christ.” We may leave the ques- 
tions of authorship, date and place, unsettled. 
The important fact is that the early church ac- 
cepted the writing as that of a man who was in 


The Writings of James, Peter and Jude 189 


such touch with the apostolic life and spirit as 
to be stirred to a flame of impetuous denunciation 
of contumacious professors of the faith, and an 
earnest appeal to the followers of Christ to be 
faithful to their Lord. 


XXIV 
THE WRITINGS OF PAUL 


HE dominant factor in the Apostolic 
Church was the great apostle to the 
Gentiles. We have spoken of the con- 

version and influence of Paul in the chapter on 
the Acts. It would be fascinating to study his 
life work in detail, but our task has to do with 
the critical discussions which have arisen regard- 
ing his New Testament epistles. We shall con- 
sider them briefly in the probable order of their 
composition. 

The First Epistle to The Thessalonians is 
generally accepted as the first letter from Paul’s 
pen of which we know. It is one of the writings 
whose genuineness has been almost universally 
acknowledged. The character of Paul has left 
its distinct impress here. Prof. Jowett says: “ It 
has been objected against the genuineness of this 
epistle that it contains only a single statement of 
doctrine. But liveliness, personality, similar 
traits of disposition, are more difficult to invent 
than statements of doctrine.” There are, more- 
over, several statements of doctrine, such as the 
supreme dignity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the 
deliverance from wrath effected by Him, the 


190 


The Writings of Paul Ig1 


resurrection of the just, and especially the second 
coming of Christ. 

But it is evident that Paul did not pur- 
pose to elaborate a statement of doctrines in 
this letter. It was written for a_ specific, 
rather than a general purpose. The reports 
brought to him from Thessalonica led him to 
write to strengthen the brethren in persecution, 
and to warn them against unworthy views and 
practices indulged in because they had an idea 
that Christ would return very soon. The letter 
was written from Corinth about 52. The state- 
ment appended in the usual editions that it was 
written from Athens is incorrect. Acts xviii: I- 
5 show that it was at Corinth, after he had left 
Athens, for it was after Silas and Timothy had 
joined him. 

The Second Epistle to The Thessalonians soon 
followed the first, probably in the same year, or 
the next. It seemed necessary to warn his fel- 
low-Christians against the idea that the second 
coming of the Lord was near at hand. Possibly 
Paul had the usual misconception on this sub- 
ject at first; but he soon saw that the expectation 
was not to be unduly cherished, hence this second 
letter emphasized the warning against any false 
hopes regarding it. The second epistle has even 
stronger Pauline characteristics than the first. 
The description of the Man of sin led it to be 
much quoted by the early fathers. There has 
been much discussion of the second chapter, and 


192 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


an attempt to show that it is unlike Paul. But 
Dean Alford insists that it “will be found on 
comparison to bear, in style and flow of sen- 
tences, a close resemblance to the denunciatory 
and prophetic portions of the other epistles.” It 
is suggestive that in Paul’s later epistles, and 
those most fully elaborated, as Romans, he has 
very little to say about the second advent. Its 
importance as to time had taken a secondary 
place in his appreciation of truth. 

The Epistle to The Galatians is one of four 
whose Pauline authorship has been practically 
undisputed in the realm of scholarship. The 
others are the two letters to the Corinthians and 
that to the Romans. It is generally believed that 
this letter was written at Ephesus. A mischiev- 
ous movement had developed in the Galatian 
Church which had loosened their hold upon the 
fundamental truth that faith in Christ is the only 
and sufficient ground for justification before 
God, so that they were casting about for other 
supplementary means of obtaining justification. 
And these means were certain observances of 
parts of the ceremonial law. Paul combats this 
error holding up Christ as the all-sufficient 
Saviour, and refers to the misguided conduct of 
Peter at Antioch to emphasize his point. It 
would seem the Judaic tendency had been fos- 
tered by some who were opposed to Paul and 
who threw suspicion upon his apostolic authority, 
for he insists upon his place as an apostle with 


The Writings of Paul 193 


persistent demand. The cast of thought and 
language in the epistle has a strong affinity to 
that in the letters to the Corinthians and Romans, 
which we shall proceed to consider. 

The First Epistle to the Corinthians was prob- 
ably written soon after that to the Galatians. 
Paul had intended to sail from Ephesus to 
Corinth, thence to visit Macedonia, returning to 
Corinth on his way to Jerusalem. The news 
from Corinth changed his plan. He had written 
them a letter, now lost, and had told them of this 
plan, and when he changed it, they accused him 
of insincerity (2 Cor. i:17). But the change 
was due to the reports. 

Aside from the unchristian conduct of the 
disciples, there were some serious perplexi- 
ties among them, such as questions of mar- 
riage and celibacy, of eating meats offered 
to idols, of the appearance of women in the 
churches, of the value of spiritual gifts, and 
material difficulties about the resurrection. They 
had written Paul about these matters, but had 
said practically nothing about the unholy living 
of certain among them. Paul deals with all the 
conditions in his most vigorous spirit, revealing 
a splendid self control, and rising at times to 
sublime heights as in the thirteenth and fifteenth 
chapters, as he pictures the spirit of divine love 
and treats of the victory of the resurrection. 

The Second Epistle to the Corinthians is a 
sequel to the first. He had hurried to Mace- 


194 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


donia, apparently being compelled to flee from 
Ephesus, and amid great hardships had reached 
Philippi, where he met Titus, whose good tidings 
filled Paul with joy. In this epistle the great 
apostle opens his inmost heart as nowhere else. 
The joy felt at first was soon changed to sor- 
row as Titus reported the aspersions cast upon 
Paul by some of the Corinthians. It almost 
breaks his heart, and he pours out his soul in 
protest and in defense of his loyalty to them and 
to his Lord. In this we find its striking contrast 
to the first epistle explained. That epistle is 
most systematic in its progress of thought, while 
this is perhaps the least systematic of all Paul’s 
letters. It is the most emotional. Yet he weaves 
consolation with tribulation in a way to bring im- 
mense comfort to the struggling heart and the 
afflicted Church of all time. 

At the end of the ninth chapter the tone of the 
letter changes so suddenly, from tenderness to a 
spirit of indignation, that it is most startling. 
Some have felt it must be a separate letter thus 
added. But it would appear probable, as one 
reads, that as Paul wrote, Titus continued his 
reports, and these reports caused the changes of 
feeling in the apostle’s mind. Such sudden 
changes of style are found elsewhere, as in the 
speech of Elijah at Carmel. It is all, however, 
recognized as the letter of Paul. 

The Epistle to The Romans is the fourth of 
this group. Its authenticity is undisputed, ex- 


The Writings of Paul 195 


cept that Bauer questions the last two chapters 
as being from Paul. Dr. McGiffert holds that 
the epistle naturally ends with the fifteenth 
chapter, and that the sixteenth was probably 
added at a later time. He considers it Pauline, 
but probably a part of a letter to the Ephesians. 
Of these points we will speak in a moment. The 
epistle is generally recognized as having been 
written from Corinth about the year 58. Ref- 
erences in the Acts and other epistles furnish the 
data for this conclusion. Paul had long been in- 
tending to visit Rome, and prepared this long and 
carefully elaborated letter to open the way for 
his coming. 

The character of the letter is probably ex- 
plained by certain facts regarding the Church 
at Rome. It had not been founded by Paul, 
and the data are insufficient to justify a 
conclusion regarding its beginning. Much dis- 
cussion has been had as to whether it was mainly 
a Jewish or a Gentile church. Paul’s letter would 
seem to indicate the latter, judging from the dis- 
cussion of chapters ix-xi. Probably there were 
Jewish converts among them, and we note that 
Paul followed his custom when he arrived at 
Rome of going to the chief among the Jews first. 
Enough had been known of Christianity in Rome 
to allow Paul to base his argument on a founda- 
tion of Jewish thought and history, but much of 
the letter is intended to reveal the point of view 
of the whole human race. The tone of the letter 


196 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


is not especially polemical, and does not seem to 
have been directed against any false doctrine, or 
any special condition in Rome. It seems to be 
a careful statement of the writer’s view of the 
general truth regarding the meaning of the Gos- 
pel in its relations to the Law, to prophecy, and 
to the universal needs of mankind. Chapters 
ix-xi do not seem to discuss the Jews in a con- 
troversial spirit, but to relate this feature of his 
subject to the whole in its proper light. Perhaps 
the thought that at the world’s metropolis a 
somewhat full and elaborate statement of the 
fundamental truths of Christianity would be de- 
sirable had prompted the letter. 

As to the discussion regarding the last two 
chapters, it may be said that early copies of the 
epistle existed without them. Origen attributes 
the omission to Marcion, who for his own pur- 
poses mutilated the epistle. The fact that the 
fathers do not quote from chapters xv and xvi 
is readily explained by the ending of the apostle’s 
argument with the fourteenth chapter. The sal- 
utations and practical suggestions contained in 
these chapters would not be so likely to have 
place in the discussions of the patristic time. It 
is true, as Dr. McGiffert says, that the fifteenth 
chapter has a natural ending; but Paul’s frequent 
postscripts are most characteristic, and the real 
doxology at the end of the sixteenth chapter fills 
out the letter as no other ending does. Dr. Mc- 
Giffert argues that the extraordinary number of 


The Writings of Paul 197 


personal greetings is scarcely consistent with the 
fact that Paul had never been in Rome, and the 
argument has force; and yet it is by no means 
impossible that these friends whom Paul knew 
in various places had settled in the capital city. 
It may be that some fragment of another letter 
has been interpolated here, bearing the marks 
of Paul in its contents, but the subject can only 
be one of conjecture, and has no vital importance 
in its bearing upon the value of the epistle as 
the great apostle’s doctrinal statement of the re- 
ligion of Jesus Christ. 

Passing thus rapidly from the accepted epistles 
of Paul, we turn to consider a group of four 
letters which are generally assigned to the time 
of the apostle’s first stay in Rome. They are the 
letters to the Colossians, Philippians, Ephesians 
and Philemon. Probably the first of these was 
The Epistle to The Colossians. With it must be 
associated the brief Letter to Philemon, which 
was written at the same time. The Church at 
Colossae was meeting in the house of Philemon 
at the time, and the general and personal letters 
reveal traces of related thought. It would seem 
probable that Philemon had visited Ephesus 
when Paul resided there, and had become a 
Christian. The Christian worker who had 
laboured at Colosse was Epaphrus, who had 
visited Paul at Rome, and was the bearer of 


news concerning the Colossian and Ephesian 
churches. 


198 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


There are those who urge that these letters 
were written at Czsarea, but we need not 
take time to dwell upon the subject, as the gen- 
erally accepted opinion fixes the place as Rome. 
Onesimus, the runaway slave of Philemon, had 
come under Paul’s influence and confessed Christ. 
Paul sent him back to Philemon with a personal 
note, in which a beautiful Gospel of emancipation 
is set forth to all succeeding generations. Paul 
pleads for Onesimus as being no longer a mere 
slave, but now a “ brother beloved” in Christ. 
The general epistle to the Colossians is coloured 
with the thought arising from this incident. 
Their spiritual deliverance from the slavery of 
sin, their reconciliation with God who “ were 
sometime alienated and enemies in your mind,” 
and the fact that in Christ there “is neither 
Greek nor Jew, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor 
free,” all take on meaning as the apostle urges 
them to “be forgiving, long-suffering, even as 
Christ forgave” them. At last he mentions 
Tychicus “with Onesimus, a faithful and be- 
loved brother who was one of you.” The per- 
sonal letter to Philemon is the only specimen of 
Paul’s private correspondence preserved to us. 

The Epistle to The Colossians has given rise 
to much discussion, because of the “ Colossian 
heresy ” presented by the “ false teachers” who 
had come among them. There are wide differ- 
ences of opinion as to what this heresy was. It 
would seem to have been a sort of philosophy, 


The Writings of Paul 199 


Judaistic in some of its features, involving the 
worship of angels, inculcating ascetic rules, in- 
spired by a false idea about the sinfulness of the 
flesh, and, most serious of all, limiting the recog- 
nition of Christ’s authority and the sufficiency of 
His redemption. We need not trace at this time 
the sources of this heresy. Suffice it to say that 
it does not seem to have secured a great hold upon 
the Colossians for Paul does not appeal to them 
to return to their faith, but to hold fast to it in 
view of this dangerous teaching. By pointing 
out its errors he hopes to keep them from yielding 
to its power. 

Speaking of the authenticity of the epistle, 
Dr. McGiffert, says: “The argument against 
its genuineness drawn from its language and 
style, has no weight. While there are un- 
doubtedly linguistic and stylistic peculiarities in 
the epistle, the most noticeable of them can be 
explained from the subject-matter, and from the 
polemic use by Paul of the terminology of those 
whose teachings he is refuting; and the marks of 
identity with his acknowledged works, especially 
with the Epistle to the Philippians, which was 
written at about the same time, are far more 
numerous and striking. But the Christology of 
the epistle has long been a stumbling-block and 
has led many scholars to deny that Paul can be 
its author. But when the purpose of the epistle 
is kept clearly in mind, when it is realized that 
the author’s object was not to teach Christology, 


200 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


but to emphasize the completeness of Christ’s re- 
demptive work, in order to show the groundless- 
ness of the observances and practices recom- 
mended in Colosse (by the false teachers), the 
difficulties vanish. Thus the striking assertion 
that in Christ dwells all the fulness of the God- 
head bodily, which goes beyond numerous utter- 
ances in Paul’s writings only in form and empha- 
sis, finds its explanation, as the context shows, in 
his desire to bring out the fact that the man who 
is in Christ has full redemption and does not need 
to seek fulness and perfectness in ritual observ- 
ance and ascetic practice.” It is not conceivable 
that anyone else could have imitated Paul so 
perfectly as this letter does. Its external and in- 
ternal evidence is overwhelming in favour of the 
accepted view that it is from his pen. 

The Epistle to The Ephesians is supposed to 
have been written probably immediately after that 
to the Colossians, as there is much resemblance 
between them. Dr. McGiffert says: “ Some 
who ascribe Colossians to Paul are unable to ad- 
mit that he wrote Ephesians. There can be no 
doubt that the difficulties which beset the latter 
are greater than those which attach to the former, 
and that the marks of Paul’s own hand are fewer 
and less distinct. But when the authenticity of 
the one has been admitted, the principal argu- 
ments against the genuineness of the other are 
deprived of their force. . . . Moreover, the 


The Writings of Paul 201 


resemblances between Colossians and Ephesians, 
both in style and in matter, are much easier to 
explain on the assumption that they were written 
by the same man at about the same time, than on 
the assumption that the author of the latter 
copied from the former. Many of the ideas, 
words and phrases are the same in both, but there 
is nowhere a trace of slavish or mechanical repro- 
duction.” 

The objections may be summarized briefly 
thus: (1) Paul would not be likely to re- 
peat himself so fully as Ephesians repeats Co- 
lossians. (2) Such expressions as “after I 
heard of your faith” in i, 15, indicate that the 
writer had never been in Ephesus. (3) There 
are no salutations to the Church at Ephesus, as 
we would certainly expect of Paul. (4) The 
Ephesian church contained both Jews and Gen- 
tiles, but this letter is apparently to Gentiles only. 
(5) Many items in style, sentiment and aim are 
not Pauline. To all this it may be said the ob- 
jectors create more difficulties than they solve by 
their theory, that any one else than Paul was the 
author of the letter. The claim of De Wette that 
the author passed it off as Pauline proves that it 
cannot contain anything plainly wun-Pauline. 
While there is much in common with Colossians, 
there is more distinctive in Ephesians itself. As 
to the expression about his “hearing” of them, 
the same is used in Philemon, and simply goes 


202 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


back in thought to the time when Paul had not 
yet known them, or refers to the reports recently 
received. 

We would expect the salutations ordinarily, 
yet they do not always occur in the way of 
personal greetings. Since the Jews in Ephesus 
opposed Paul, it is not strange that he wrote more 
especially to the Gentiles. Moreover there are 
those who think the letter was a general letter to 
the churches in the region of Ephesus, and not 
to that one church. The people in the region were 
preponderatingly Gentile. The main argument is 
regarding the doctrine. In answer to this Dr. 
McGiffert says: “‘ Here again, as in Colossians, 
the advance upon Paul’s other writings is almost 
wholly in the matter of emphasis, and when the 
practical purpose of the epistle is taken into ac- 
count, the difference makes no insuperable diffi- 
culty.” Paul’s design in this letter is a general 
one—to confirm and inspire the churches. The 
atmosphere of the letter is serene and hopeful. 
The appeal is to strive for a realization of the very 
highest Christian character in the fulness of 
Christ. 

The Epistle to The Philippians is the last of 
this group. It is placed by some before, by others 
after the three just considered. Bishop Light- 
foot, to whom the students of these epistles is 
greatly indebted, places this letter very early in 
the first Roman imprisonment. He points out 
several resemblances to the Epistle to the Romans, 


The Writings of Paul 203 


and argues that these indicate an early date. On 
the other hand a rather striking resemblance be- 
tween Phil. i, 23-30, and 2 Tim. iv, 6-8, indicate 
a date as late as possible for this letter. It is a 
matter which cannot be settled, and not of great 
importance. There is practically no serious ob- 
jection to the authenticity of the epistle. It is a 
personal letter of a friend to Christian friends. 
They have given Paul much joy. There is one 
bad tendency in their midst which he rebukes, 
namely an indication of disunion. He implores 
them to be of one mind, and presents the familiar 
doctrines, inspiring appeals, and practical lessons 
in a most loving spirit. 

The Pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus 
complete the letters of Paul. Their authenticity 
has been widely questioned. Eusebius brings 
very important testimony when he speaks of “ the 
fourteen epistles of Paul,’ although he makes 
some reservation about the epistle to the He- 
brews. Dr. McGiffert thinks, “there is grave 
reason to doubt whether they are actually Paul’s.” 
He notes that they are not included in the writ- 
ings of Paul by any writer prior to Irenzus. 
They are the only letters bearing the name of 
Paul not appearing in the New Testament of 
Marcion. The tone employed in addressing 
Timothy and Titus is not what he would expect 
of Paul. “They had been for many years be- 
loved and trusted disciples and intimate friends 
and companions, and yet Paul finds it necessary 


204 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


to emphasize his apostleship, to defend his char- 
acter and authority, to assert that he is not lying, 
as if he were addressing strangers or even ene- 
mies such as he had to deal with in Galatia and 
Corinth.” It is further urged that the contents 
have many instructions in the elementary duties 
.of the Christian life, warnings against vice and 
lust, as if the writer thought Timothy and Titus 
needed these. 

Moreover it is claimed that while there 
are resemblances to Paul’s epistles, there are 
so many features not repeated in Paul as to 
suggest another writer. One table shows one 
hundred and sixty-five words found only in these 
three epistles. Dr. McGiffert further says: 
“Though we cannot, with many critics, draw a 
conclusion adverse to Pauline authorship from 
the existence of such heresies as we find alluded 
to, we are compelled to see in the way they are 
handled by the author a convincing proof that he 
was not Paul. . . . Whether the false teachers 
are antinomian or ascetic, whether they are spirit- 
ualistic or legalistic, the author does not treat 
them as if there were any vital difference between 
them. They are all alike given to foolish and 
ignorant questionings, disputes about words, 
strifes about the law, fables, genealogies, and 
profane babblings. Such indiscriminate denuncia- 
tions are certainly not what we should expect 
from a man like Paul, who was an uncommonly 
clear-headed dialectician, accustomed to draw 


The Writings of Paul 206 


fine distinctions, and whose penetration and abil- 
ity to discover and display the vital point of dif- 
ference between himself and an antagonist have 
never been surpassed. 

“Those who ascribe to Paul the references 
to false teaching which occur in the pastoral 
epistles do him a serious injustice. . . In- 
stead of demonstrating the falseness of the 
positions taken by the heretical teachers, he sim- 
ply denounces them ; and instead of exhibiting his 
own Gospel, and showing its bearing on the ques- 
tions in dispute, he simply appeals to the fact that 
a deposit of faith has been handed down as a 
safeguard against all heresies of whatever sort. 
The contrast between this kind of procedure and 
that which Paul follows in Galatians, Romans, 
and Colossians, in all the epistles, in fact, in which 
he has to deal with heresy, is most striking. The 
spirit that actuates the pastorals is not the spirit 
of Paul, but the spirit of 2 John, and of Poly- 
carp.” This is trenchant and vigorous argu- 
ment. 

On the other hand the arguments are given for 
the Pauline authorship. The Muratorian Canon 
(about 170) includes thirteen epistles of Paul, ex- 
cluding Hebrews, and they have held their place 
in all the Canons East and West. Prior to 
Irenzus, both Clement of Rome and Polycarp 
use expressions which are identical with certain 
phrases in Titus, and 2 Timothy. On the face of 
them the letters claim to be Paul’s. One who was 


206 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


attempting to imitate Paul would not have been 
so free to use words and phrases so original as 
many which occur. The very fact which Dr. 
McGiffert urges so earnestly, that Paul does not 
reveal his usual argumentative and logical acu- 
men here, is in perfect harmony with a letter to 
one who was his “own son in faith.” Paul’s 
references to himself bear all the naturalness of 
a personal testimony. The whole atmosphere of 
the letters is saturated with a Pauline flavour, 
not the keen analytical method of the longer 
epistles, written to combat error, but in harmony 
with a general treatise. 

As the reader follows the thought, it be- 
comes apparent that what Dr. McGiffert 
deems a lack of confidence in his companions 
in the faith, leading him to warnings against 
vices not likely to be dangerous to them, is 
only a high aspiration for them that they may 
be free from all these things, to which all men 
are liable, and to which men of that day and en- 
vironment were continually exposed. Long lists 
of resemblances between the expressions in these 
epistles and others accepted as Paul’s are given. 
Dr. McGiffert would class these letters with the 
writings of Polycarp, but the difference of tone, 
of divine glow, of intellectual power, is immense. 
Dr. P. J. Gloag says: “ The combination of 
mental vigour and sober, practical good sense, 
and sagacious intuition with regard to men and 
things, and extensive knowledge, with fervent 


The Writings of Paul 207 


zeal, and enthusiasm of temperament, and ardent 
piety, and entire self-sacrifice, and heavenly- 
mindedness, and the upward, onward movement 
of the whole inner man under the guidance of 
God’s Holy Spirit, producing an inartistic elo- 
quence of immense force and persuasiveness, is 
found in these pastoral epistles, as in all the other 
epistles of the great apostle; but it is found no- 
where else. St. Paul, we know, could have 
written them, we know of no one else who 
could.” 


XXV 


THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 


T HE importance of this portion of the New 


Testament has not been adequately em- 

phasized. For several reasons it holds a 
place of unique character among the epistles 
which came from the apostles. Its distinctive 
significance lies in the fact that it comes from 
the second generation of the apostolic age, in the 
last quarter of the first century, and while that 
may be true of John’s Gospel, yet this writer does 
not carry the personal memory which appears in 
John, and reflects for us the real balance of the 
truth as it came to be understood by the Church 
which followed the earlier beginnings. The dif- 
ferent points of view and of emphasis, as sug- 
gested in different epistles and records, were com- 
ing to be related in their proper proportions, and 
we have here a statement of the whole truth, both 
as it related the Old Testament with the New, 
and the life and teachings of Christ with the illu- 
mination of the teachings of the apostles. 

The Epistle to the Hebrews does this for us as 
does no other section of the New Testament. The 
title which appears in our versions, including both 
the name of Paul and the words “ To the He- 

208 


The Epistle to the Hebrews 209 


brews” is not found in the early manuscripts. 
The words “To the Hebrews” are generally 
found, and yet the epistle itself does not specify 
any such class, nor give any hint of the writer. 
In iii: 1, the writer addresses his readers as “ holy 
brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling,” and 
there is really no specific intimation that he has 
in mind a special class of Christians. The whole 
scope of the thought suggests a much broader 
purpose. 

It was a time of persecution. His readers are 
reminded of “the former days,’ when they were 
first “illuminated,” and of persecution endured 
in the past. Sufficient time had elapsed to allow 
them to show signs of wavering from their early 
steadfastness, and their “leaders” who had 
“spoken to them the word of God,” had already 
passed away, the reference to them (xiii: 7) sug- 
gesting martyrdom as the form of their death. 
Nothing can be urged as to date because no refer- 
ence is made to the destruction of Jerusalem, for 
it is a very interesting fact that no mention at all 
is made of the Temple. It is the Tabernacle to 
which the writer refers throughout in all his com- 
parisons and contrasts. It is the camp in the 
wilderness and Moses, the giver of the law, with 
which he deals. The letter is written to a cer- 
tain church or community of churches, as evi- 
denced in xiii: 22-23; but we have no data to in- 
dicate who they were. The expression “ they of 
Italy ” may mean that the letter was written from 


210 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


Italy, or that some from Italy were sojourning 
with the writer at the time. Probably the letter 
was written about the year 8o. 

Various theories about the authorship have 
been urged. The earliest allusion to this 
matter is by Clement of Alexandria, who 
sets forth the opinion that Paul wrote it 
first in Hebrew, and Luke translated it into 
Greek. But it is very evident that the whole letter 
has the unmistakable ring of an original composi- 
tion, and this view of Clement is untenable. An- 
other view, apparently held by Jerome, was that 
Paul supplied the ideas which another person put 
into their present form. Tertullian puts forth the 
suggestion that Barnabas wrote it. All this 
shows that the early fathers realized that the 
epistle bears indications that it did not come from 
the pen of Paul. And yet it has similarities to 
Paul’s thought and style, and soon came to be 
attributed to him, until modern scholarship real- 
ized that the evidence is conclusive against Paul- 
ine authorship. Luther suggested Apollos as 
being the probable author. 

The fact remains that we do not know the au- 
thor. Concerning this Dr. McGiffert says :— 
“ Though religiously and in vigour and force of 
personality, the author of the Epistle to the He- 
brews was inferior to the great apostle to the 
Gentiles, he was without doubt the finest and 
most cultured literary genius of the primitive 
church. His thought moves throughout on an 


The Epistle to the Hebrews 211 


elevated plane, and his language is uniformly 
worthy of his thought, in certain passages becom- 
ing genuinely eloquent and even sublime. The 
fact that a writer of such rare power and grace 
should have left us only a single monument of 
his genius, and that a mere letter, written for a 
definite practical purpose, and that his name 
should have been entirely forgotten within less 
than a century after his death, serves to remind 
us in a very forcible way of the limitations of our 
knowledge respecting the early days of Christian- 
ity. . . . In that age names meant nothing; 
literature meant still less. The Spirit of God 
speaking in and through believers was everything. 

Subsequent generations retained for the 
most part only what was supposed to be apostolic, 
and only because it was. And all those who 
could not lay claim to the dignity of apostles 
passed into oblivion, and the few brief and scat- 
tered products of their pens which have survived 
the ravages of time, owe their preservation to 
the fact that they were fortunate enough to lose 
their identity and to get themselves attached in 
one way or another to some apostolic name.” 

As has been intimated, the epistle reveals a pur- 
pose to include Christians generally, and not sim- 
ply Jews, in its teachings and appeals. The use 
of Old Testament material was common to the 
whole Church which looked upon these Scrip- 
tures as the only authoritative writings at the 
first. It belonged to Gentile and Jew alike, as all 


212 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


were “children of faithful Abraham.” Dr. Me- 
Giffert notes that “in the practical exhortations 
and warnings with which the epistle is filled, and 
which reveal most clearly the real aim it was 
written for, nothing whatever is said about apos- 
tasy to Judaism. The readers are never warned 
against falling back into the religion of Moses, 
although if that is what the author feared, it 
would seem that he could hardly have failed, 
when he contrasted the new covenant with the 
old, to call direct attention to the folly of de- 
serting the one for the other. But instead of 
doing that, he draws lessons of an entirely differ- 
ent kind: ‘ How shall we escape, if we neglect 
so great salvation?’ ‘Take heed lest there shall 
be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief.’ 
“Let us draw near with boldness that we may 
receive mercy.’ ‘ Be not sluggish, but imitators 
of them who through faith and patience inherit 
the promises.’ And when the author warns his 
readers against the worst of all sins,—the wilful 
denial and repudiation of Christ, after once ac- 
cepting him—there is no sign that he thinks of 
such apostasy as due to the influence of Judaism, 
or as connected with it in any way.” Not only is 
this true, but there are some passages which sug- 
gest Gentiles as the object of the writer’s 
thought: “How much more shall the blood of 
Christ cleanse your conscience from dead works 
to serve the living God?” This points to Chris- 
tians who had come out of heathenism. In most 


The Epistle to the Hebrews 213 


of Paul’s fields the disciples were thought of, not 
as Jews or Gentiles, but as Christians. And this 
general thought of the believers to whom this 
letter is sent is entirely consistent with the whole 
tone of it. 

Without presenting a detailed analysis of the 
epistle, it may be important to show how the au- 
thor clearly reveals a difference in his conceptions 
from those which characterize the writings of 
Paul, although there is a sympathy with the Paul- 
ine thought in much of it. It is apparent that the 
author looks upon salvation as largely a future 
blessing, for which the faithful are to endure unto 
the end. Paul’s dominant idea is that salvation 
is a freedom from the flesh here and now increas- 
ingly, with the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us and 
transforming the character. The author agrees 
with Paul that the old covenant is abrogated ; but 
he finds the reason for this to be, not because of 
a radical difference, but because the old was an 
imperfect shadow of that which is to be perfectly 
realized in the new. Moreover in realizing the 
aim of the new covenant, the author finds a larger 
place for the life of Christ than is often given. 
The importance of His death is not minimized, 
but the fact that “ when He came into the world, 
He said, Lo! I come to do Thy will, O God,” 
points to an appreciation of the obedience which 
He rendered to the Father, in the fulfilling of all 
righteousness, which gave value to His death as 
the spotless Lamb of God. 


214 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


Again this epistle, while assuming the resur- 
rection, passes by that fact, which has such 
large place in Paul’s thought, and dwells 
upon the work of Christ now as our Ad- 
vocate at the throne of God. In the exercise 
of His high-priestly office, this part of Christ’s 
mediation still goes on, which it is vitally impor- 
tant that His people should realize. In all this, 
the author puts into the priestly duty the work of 
sanctifying His followers. This is very impor- 
tant, because it was not a part of the duty of the 
Jewish priest. What Christ is now doing in 
heaven for us is His supreme work, and we not 
only have forgiveness of sins because of His 
finished work when He was in the flesh, and died 
on the cross; but we have His continued help in 
our sanctification through His Spirit. All the 
story of the earthly experience is made to reveal 
the purpose of Christ to become fitted for this 
work, as when we read in ii: 17-18: “ Where- 
fore in all things it behooved him to be made like 
unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and 
faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, 
to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 
For in that he himself hath suffered, being 
tempted, he is able to succour them that are 
tempted.” Perhaps this contribution is the most 
distinctive in the epistle, and its sympathy with 
Paul’s teaching is at once in keeping with its 
different emphasis from that which dominated 
Paul’s attitude toward Christ. 


The Epistle to the Hebrews 215 


Before turning from this epistle, it is important 
to note how it contributes a special emphasis upon 
the historic Moses and the historic Tabernacle. It 
may be said, of course, that all this discussion of 
the historic fundamentals of the Mosaic law and 
ceremony was simply the taking from the record 
that which was in its present form when the au- 
thor prepared his letter, and that he simply used 
the records without in any way adding anything 
to the evidence for historicity of the accounts of 
Moses and the features of the system discussed. 
But when we read: “ Moses verily was faithful 
in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of 
those things which were to be spoken after; but 
Christ as a Son over his own house,” we feel a 
sense of reliability which reminds us that at the 
time of the apostles the universal conviction of 
the reality of the establishment of the theocracy, 
as the record indicates, strengthens the ground 
for believing the national faith was not built upon 
a fiction which was foisted in any way upon the 
people, but upon a fact whose actual character 
was the basis of all prophetic utterance and all 
requirement on the part of the Christian leaders 
as well. The epistle to the Hebrews is a strong 
confirmation of the faith of the people in the his- 
toric Moses, with his work in the Camp and 
Tabernacle at the beginning of Israel’s national 
life. 


XXVI 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 


ie writings which tradition has attributed 
to John the beloved disciple, are the 
three letters which bear his name, the 
Book of Revelation and the Fourth Gospel. It 
is generally conceded that the first of the epistles 
and the Fourth Gospel are written by the same 
man. As to the other writings there is great 
divergence of view. Dr. McGiffert’s statement 
regarding the two short letters sums up the sub- 
ject for us thus: “ The two brief epistles known 
as Second and Third John were written by one 
hand, and at about the same time. Whether they, 
too, are by the author of the Gospel and of the 
First Epistle of John is not certain. The use of 
the term ‘elder’ in the opening salutation is 
against the identification, as are also certain dif- 
ferences in style. But on the other hand there 
are striking resemblances both in thought and in 
language which naturally suggest, and indeed 
make it quite probable, that the author was the 
same in both cases. Tradition does not help us 
in the matter, for it begins very late, and even 
then is not unanimous. Some of the fathers as- 
cribe the letters to the apostle John, others to 
a16 


The Writings of John 217 


John the presbyter, others are in doubt as to their 
authorship. But at any rate, even if not identical 
with the author of the first epistle the writer of 
the two short epistles must have belonged to the 
same school and breathed the same atmosphere, 
and must have been familiar with the Johanine 
literature.” 

This statement practically leaves no opposition 
to the strong claims that are made for the identity 
of authorship by many scholars. It is urged that 
the first and second epistles reveal the same hand 
by fully as much evidence as could be demanded. 
The strongly marked style of the Fourth Gospel 
and the First Epistle is also conspicuous in the 
Second Epistle and is not lacking, though not 
quite so conspicuous, in the third. The two great 
characteristics of this style are profound thought 
and simplicity of language. The key to the sub- 
ject, therefore, is to be found in the solution of 
the problem of the authorship of the Fourth Gos- 
pel. The most satisfactory recent discussion of 
this subject is by Dr. Marcus Dods, in The Ex- 
positor’s Greek Testament. Dr. Dods emphasizes 
the importance of this inquiry because “in no 
other Gospel have we the direct testimony of an 
eye-witness. Luke expressly informs us that his 
information, although carefully sifted, is at 
second hand. . . . But the Fourth Gospel pro- 
fesses to be the work of an eye-witness, and of 
an eye-witness who enjoyed an intimacy with our 
Lord, allowed to none besides. . . . The au- 


218 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


thor of the Gospel not only expresses his own 
belief in our Lord’s divinity, but he puts words 
into the mouth of Jesus, which even on close scru- 
tiny seem to many to form an explicit claim to 
preexistence and thus to imply a claim to 
divinity. . . . If an apostle was responsible 
for the Gospel, then the probability is that the 
utterances which are referred to Christ nearly, if 
not absolutely, represent His very words, and 
that the doctrinal position of the author himself 
is not one we can lightly set aside.” 

Dr. Dods, in noting the external evidence of 
Johanine authorship, begins with the statement 
that at the end of the second century this Gospel 
was accepted as the work of the apostle John, and 
was recognized as canonical. The opponents of 
Johanine authorship have declared it “ totally un- 
necessary” to account for this very important 
fact, but Dr. Dods insists that the fact cannot 
thus be dismissed easily. He quotes with ap- 
proval the statement of Archdeacon Watkins con- 
cerning the fathers of the time “that these in- 
dividual witnesses were men of culture and rich 
mental endowment, with full access to materials 
for judgment, and full power to exercise that 
judgment; that their witness was given in the 
face of hostile heathenism and opposing heresy, 
which demanded caution in argument and reserve 
in statement; and that this witness is clear, defi- 
nite, unquestioned.” 

There was only one prominent exception to this 


The Writings of John 219 


universal recognition in the person of Marcion. 
But it is pointed out that the fact that Marcion 
rejected John’s Gospel, which was on doctrinal 
grounds, and not a denial that John wrote it, not 
only shows that it had been accepted before his 
day (170), but also that in spite of the opposition 
of Marcion, the fathers maintained their view. 
Irenzeus (180) accepted it as John’s, and the sig- 
nificance of this is the fact that Irenzeus was the 
pupil of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John. 
About the year 150 Tatian published a Harmony 
of the four Gospels, and Prof. Sanday shows 
that the text used in this work of Tatian “ does 
not represent the original autograph of the Gos- 
pel, nor a first copy of it, but that several copy- 
ings must have intervened between the original 
and Tatian’s text.” Dr. Sanday asserts that, so 
far as he knows, the German critics have over- 
looked this important fact. 

Coming to an earlier date, we note that 
the one extant writing of Polycarp, written 
about 110, quotes from the First Epistle of 
John, and since no one doubts that it came 
from the same hand as the Gospel, we must 
fix the time of his activity before t10. Ezra 
Abbott points out the fact that the Gnostics ac- 
cepted the Gospel as John’s about the year 120, 
which means that “they received it because they 
could not help it. They would not have admitted 
the authority of a book which could only be 
reconciled with their doctrines by most forced 


220 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


interpretation, if they could have destroyed its 
authority by denying its genuineness. Its genu- 
ineness could then be easily ascertained. . 
The fact of the reception of the Fourth Gospel as 
his work at so early a date, by parties so violently 
opposed to each other, proves that the evidence 
of its genuineness was decisive.” 

Turning to the internal evidence, Dr. Dods 
follows the usual items considered by scholars, 
showing that the writer was (1) a Jew, (2) a 
Palestinian, (3) an eye-witness, (4) the apostle 
John. The first three of these points need not 
occupy our time, for they are generally conceded. 
These do not, however, in some minds lead to the 
fourth point. In xxi: 24, the writer of this Gos- 
pel is identified with the disciple whom Jesus 
loved. In the other Gospels John is frequently 
mentioned by name. In this Gospel he is not 
mentioned by name, and the most natural and 
sufficient explanation of this fact is that John was 
its author. But it is objected that this Gospel 
(1) has a universalism not consistent with what 
we know of John as a pillar in the Jewish church. 
But if the long years intervening before John 
wrote had not broadened his thought, it would 
be strange indeed. We find just what we would 
expect in this regard. (2) There is a philoso- 
phical colouring not likely to be found in the writ- 
ing of a Galilean fisherman. This again presumes 
that the youth John had made no progress 
through sixty years of growth and study. At 


The Writings of John 221 


best the traces of a philosophy in John have been 
exaggerated. Doubtless at Ephesus he came into 
contact with some of it, but the Logos idea is not 
so much philosophical, as it is the essential ex- 
pression of Sonship. Harnack truly says: ‘ The 
prologue is not the key to the understanding of 
the Gospel, but is rather intended to prepare the 
Hellenistic reader for its perusal.” After the in- 
troduction, the Logos is not referred to again. 

(3) It is claimed that John depends upon the 
Synoptics for material, and has not the originality 
of an eye-witness. But no one would deny that 
John knew the Synoptics, and it would be per- 
fectly natural for him to use certain familiar 
phrases, especially as some of the expressions 
must have been the exact statements of fact, such 
as he would repeat with precision. Even when 
they are used there are marks of change in the 
connections which suggest an original witness. 
Dr. Dods shows that “it may rather be said that, 
in several instances, we find additions and correc- 
tions which are requisite for the understanding of 
the Synoptists. From the first three Gospels the 
reader might gather that our Lord’s ministry ex- 
tended over only one year. The Fourth Gospel 
definitely mentions three Passovers, with a pos- 
sible fourth (ii: 13, vi: 4, xiii: I, and v: 1).” 

The independence of the Fourth Gospel is fur- 
ther shown by the fact that much is introduced 
not found in the three Synoptics. The account 
of the semi-public ministry previous to the death 


222 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


of the Baptist, the omission of much which the 
others contain, as unnecessary, and the introduc- 
tion of much not found in them, as important sup- 
plementary material, all show that the writer had 
knowledge beyond the records already possessed. 
This is explained by certain critics as pointing to 
some of John’s followers. But since our external 
evidence goes to a point within twenty years of 
John, there remains no reason for refusing to 
admit the apostle himself as the authority for 
these statements of fact, and his illuminating 
comments upon them. 

(4) Perhaps one of the most serious dif- 
ficulties in the mind of many critics is the 
presence in this Gospel of so many lengthy 
addresses and conversations not mentioned 
in the other Gospels. Renan puts the ob- 
jection strongly: “ This fashion of preaching and 
demonstrating without ceasing, this everlasting 
argumentation, this artificial get-up, these long 
discussions following each miracle, these dis- 
courses, stiff and awkward, whose tone is so 
often false and unequal, are intolerable to a man 
of taste alongside the delicious sentences of the 
Synoptists.” In facing this consideration, Dr. 
Dods says:—‘‘ The narrative portion of John 
may be said to exist for the sake of the verbal 
teaching. The miracles which in the first three 
Gospels appear as the beneficent acts of our Lord 
without ulterior motive, seem in the Fourth Gos- 
pel to exist for the sake of the teaching they 


The Writings of John 223 


embody, and the discussions they give rise to. 
Similarly, the persons introduced, such as Nico- 
demus, are viewed chiefly as instrumental in elicit- 
ing from Jesus certain sayings, and are them- 
selves forgotten in the conversation they have 
suggested.” 

Coming to the real explanation, Dr. Dods 
continues: “If John had had nothing new 
to tell, no fresh aspect of Christ or His teaching 
to present, he would not have written at all. No 
doubt each of the Synoptists goes over ground 
already traversed by his fellow-Synoptist, but it 
has yet to be proved that they knew one another’s 
work. John did know of their Gospels, and the 
very fact that he added a fourth prepares us to 
expect that it will be different. . . . That there 
was another aspect essential to the completeness 
of the figure was, as the present Bishop of Derry 
has pointed out, also to be surmised. . . . The 
faith which has found its resting place in the 
Christ of the Synoptists is not unsettled or per- 
plexed by anything it finds in John. They are 
not two Christs but one, which the four Gospels 
depict: diverse as the profile and front face, but 
one another’s complement rather than contradic- 
tion.” 

It is not claimed that all that is recorded in this 
Gospel was spoken exactly as it stands. All 
critics agree that John must necessarily have con- 
densed conversations and discourses. Probably 
we have the actual words of the most striking 


224 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


sayings, for they could not be forgotten. And 
this especially applies to the sayings of Christ re- 
garding Himself. “No doubt,” says Dr. Dods, 
“in the last resort we must trust John. But 
whom could we more reasonably trust?” More- 
over when we note the author’s statement regard- 
ing his object in writing this Gospel, (xx: 31) 
“that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, 
the Son of God, and that believing ye might have 
life in His name,” it becomes evident that he is 
not purposing to write a full biography of Jesus, 
but to select such material from the store as will 
most readily accomplish his aim. His reference 
to the fact that if he were to tell all that Jesus 
said and did, there would not be books enough to 
hold it, only strengthens the sense of the personal 
touch of the eye-witness in the story. 

It is evident that John realized that this 
truth needed confirmation, that there existed 
a tendency to deny the Messiahship of Jesus. 
We know this tendency was in the air at 
the end of the first century in certain quar- 
ters. Dr. Dods utters strong words just at 
this point: “The object in view reflects light 
on the historicity of the contents of the 
Gospel. The writer professes to produce cer- 
tain facts which have powerfully influenced the 
minds of men, and have produced faith. If these 
pretended facts were fictions, then the writer is 
dishonest and beneath contempt. He wishes to 
produce the conviction that Jesus is the Messiah, 


The Writings of John 225 


and to accomplish this purpose invents incidents 
and manipulates utterances of Jesus. A writer of 
romance who merely wishes to please, even a 
preacher whose aim is edification, might claim a 
certain latitude or negligence of accuracy, but a 
writer whose object is to prove a certain proposi- 
tion stands on a very different platform, and can 
only be pronounced fraudulent if he invents his 
evidence.” The reader will appreciate the force 
of these words as applied to certain theories of 
authorship already considered in the discussion 
of certain Old Testament books. The argument 
applies there as here. 

Concerning John’s method to convince his read- 
ers that Jesus is the Son of God, Dr. Dods says 
it is the simplest possible. ‘‘ He does not ex- 
pect that men will believe this on his mere word. 
He sets himself to reproduce those salient features 
in the life of Jesus which chiefly manifested His 
Messianic dignity and function. He believes that 
what convinced himself will convince others. 
One by one he cites his witnesses, never garbling 
their testimony nor concealing the adverse testi- 
mony, but showing with as exact truthfulness 
how unbelief grew and hardened into opposition, 
as he tells how the faith grew till it culminated 
in the supreme confession of Thomas, ‘ My Lord 
and my God.’ The plan of the Gospel is there- 
fore the simplest. It falls into two parts. In the 
first, John presents those scenes in which Jesus 
made those selfi-revelations which it was essential 


226 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


the world should see. In the second part the glory 
of Christ is manifested, culminating in His tri- 
umph over death.” 

To these words of Dr. Dods should be 
added the following statement of Dr. Mc- 
Giffert: ‘The Gospel of John alone reveals 
fully the secret of Christ’s marvellous power in 
His profound God-consciousness, and it is this 
that gives it its permanent historic as well as re- 
ligious value. It constitutes an indispensable 
supplement of the Synoptic Gospels for the his- 
torian who would know not simply the actual 
words of Jesus and the course of His daily life, 
but the ultimate basis of His religious ideas and 
ideals, and thus the explanation of His controlling 
and abiding influence.” 


THE BOOK OF REVELATION 


The Hebrew custom of naming books by their 
initial words is followed here. And the word is 
descriptive of the largest part of the contents of 
the book. It is preeminently an apocalypse, sug- 
gesting the vision of Daniel. The book bears the 
name of John, and Justin Martyr identifies the 
author with the apostle. Later fathers questioned 
its apostolic authorship, and Eusebius reports 
that: in his day many ascribed it to the presbyter 
John, of whom Papias tells us. It did not ap- 
pear in some of the earliest collections of the 
New Testament, and was rather slow in finding 
its place in the Canon. It would seem, however, 


The Writings of John 227 


that one principal reason for this was that the 
chiliasm of the book was offensive to some of the 
fathers, who were anxious to disprove its apos- 
tolic authorship on this account. Dr. McGiffert 
is very urgent in the opinion that the writer of 
the Apocalypse could not have been the author 
of the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle of 
John. He notes (1) that the author does not 
himself claim to be an apostle, and (2) that it 
represents in the main an entirely different type 
of thought. 

Much turns upon the time when it is prob- 
able the book was written. The two dates 
advocated are 69 and 96. The reversed figures 
are easily remembered. The advocates of the 
earlier date fix John’s banishment in the time 
of the Neronian persecution, and believe the 
Apocalypse preceded the Fourth Gospel by nearly 
thirty years. Canon Westcott, in the Speaker's 
Commentary, argues for the earlier date. He 
says (1) regarding the linguistic phenomena: 
“Nor is it difficult to see that, in any case, in- 
tercourse with a Greek-speaking people would in 
a short time naturally reduce the style of the 
author of the Apocalypse to that of the author 
of the Gospel. It is, however, very difficult to 
suppose that the language of the writer of the 
Gospel could pass at a later time, in a Greek- 
speaking country, into the language of the 
Apocalypse.” 

Dr. Westcott is recognized as one of the 


228 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


masters of the linguistic problems, and his 
judgment on this point is especially valuable. 
(2) Regarding the doctrinal expressions, he 
says: “ The Apocalypse is doctrinally the uniting 
link between the Synoptists and the Fourth Gos- 
pel. It offers the characteristic thoughts of the 
Fourth Gospel in that form of development 
which belongs to the earliest apostolic age. It 
belongs to different historical circumstances, to 
a different phase of intellectual progress, to a 
different theological stage, from that of St. 
John’s Gospel; and yet it is not only in harmony 
with it in its teachings, but in the order of 
thought it is the necessary germ out of which 
the Gospel proceeded by a process of life. ; 
The Apocalypse is less developed both in thought 
and style. The material imagery in which it is 
composed includes the idea of progress in inter- 
pretation. The symbols are living. On the other 
hand, to go back from the teaching of the Gos- 
pel to that of the Apocalypse, to clothe clear 
thought in figures, to reduce the full expression 
of truth to its rudimentary beginnings, seems to 
involve a moral miracle which would introduce 
confusion into life.” 

This argument is not only in behalf of the 
earlier date, as is apparent, but also of the Johan- 
ine authorship. The principal explanation of the 
difference of opinion which has all along arisen 
about the matter is the fact that some of the 
fathers assert that John’s banishment was in the 


The Writings of John 229 


time of Domitian. Clement of Alexandria says 
that John went from the island of Patmos “ after 
the tyrant was dead” to Ephesus, and that from 
Ephesus as his headquarters he used to go into 
the neighbouring districts to appoint bishops, to 
regulate churches, and to ordain clergy. But 
Ireneus says the Apocalypse was seen during 
the reign of Domitian. But Domitian did not 
die until 96, and it is not probable that John out- 
lived the first century. Eusebius places the long 
stay of John in Ephesus after his return from 
Patmos, and this seems to be generally agreed 
upon; but if this be so, it seems likely that “ the 
tyrant ”’ was mistakenly supposed by Irenzus to 
be Domitian, and that Eusebius quoted him, fol- 
lowing the mistake. 

Tertullian in a famous passage about Rome 
says: “ Where Peter suffered a death like our 
Lord’s; where Paul was beheaded like John 
the Baptist; and where the Apostle John 
after being plunged into burning hot oil 
without being hurt, was banished to an 
island.” The only point to this which is signifi- 
cant is that the association of John’s persecution 
with that of Peter and Paul would point to the 
earlier persecution of Nero. Moreover Tertullian, 
in speaking of Domitian, says his was a milder 
persecution than that of Nero, and implies that he 
restored those he had banished, but no mention 
is made of John. While all this is not conclu- 
Sive, it points to the earlier date for the Apoc- 


230 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


alypse, and also strengthens the opinion that it 
came from the pen of the Apostle. Dr. McGif- 
fert argues that the strong hatred of the State as 
the enemy of the Church, revealed in the book, 
points to a later date, for this hatred did not 
exist earlier. But Paul’s Roman citizenship gave 
him a different point of view of the State, and 
we can understand how the persecutions, whether 
early or late, would explain any Judaistic sense 
of the enmity between the kingdoms of the earth 
and the Kingdom of Heaven. 

The book of Revelation has largely been a 
sealed book to the average man, notwithstanding 
the assertion that “ blessed is he who reads these 
words of teaching and they also who hear and 
keep the things written therein.” Victor Hugo, 
when he himself was an exile, said: “ In reading 
the poem of Patmos some one seems to push you 
from behind.” In their days of trial and perse- 
cution the disciples were looking for the return 
of their Lord. Jesus had spoken to them of the 
words of the prophet Daniel, and naturally they 
studied again the message of that prophet. John 
had evidently done this, for two of Daniel’s great 
visions form the framework on which John’s 
vision is built. The book deals with conditions 
and principles rather than with particular places 
and individuals. In allegory and symbol the 
vision of the victory of Christ and His redeemed 
is pictured with a sublime exaltation of sustained 
thought. “ The things that are,” the things then 


The Writings of John 231 


current, are considered in the letters to the Seven 
Churches, in their relation to their Lord and to 
the world. “The things past” are unfolded 
from the sealed book and expressed in cryptic 
terms. The story of the past is the shadow of 
the “things that must be hereafter.” 

The divisions of the book are not chro- 
nological, but a series of pictures which pre- 
sent the same teaching from different points 
of view. ‘The lines between the sensible 
and the spiritual are absent. Neither time 
nor death separates Christ from His apostles 
and His Church.” This is not the place 
to venture an interpretation of the book, but 
the writer wishes to call attention to a recent 
publication on the subject which bears the rather 
fantastic title Mystery of The Golden Cloth by 
the Rev. J. S. Hughes. It is the most satis- 
factory study of the Apocalypse, taken all in all, 
of which he knows. The writer is one of those 
who believe this book will take a more satis- 
factory place in the future thought of the 
Church than it has had heretofore. The day will 
come when the people of God will respond to the 
triumphant strain which sounds through it, as- 
suring the ultimate victory and unending joy of 
the Lord of our salvation and His redeemed out 
of every kindred and tongue and people and 
nation. 


XXVII 


THE PLACE OF MIRACLES 


quickly discovers that the extreme crit- 

ics deny the supernatural in every form. 
Statements in the text regarding divine revela- 
tions and miraculous manifestations are dis- 
missed by them as fictitious and not worthy of 
credence. Moreover many Christian students are 
sympathetic with the idea that it would be a 
great gain to the cause of truth if less were made 
of the importance of miracles, and more stress 
laid upon the abiding verities of spiritual truth 
and righteous living. A discussion of this subject 
is therefore important as bearing upon the whole 
field of historic and literary Criticism, especially 
as it involves the naturalistic theories to which 
certain critics are so strongly wedded. 

When we turn to consider the place of miracle 
in the Old Testament records, it is vitally es- 
sential that we keep in mind the actual condition 
of the masses of the people. They were ignorant 
and undisciplined. Only a very few could read, 
and the multitude was compelled to receive the 
truth from the lips of these few chosen men. The 
importance of this fact as related to the revelation 

232 


fh HE student of the movement of Criticism 


The Place of Miracles 233 


of truth is far-reaching. All revelation must be 
on the principle of accommodation to the limita- 
tions of the people to be instructed. Modern 
pedagogy has discovered the importance of the 
object lesson for the child. But Froebel might 
have learned his new appreciation of its value 
if he had studied the method of divine revelation 
to men. 

There was no other method possible for 
the education of the people comparable to this. 
Jt was the kindergarten age of the world-school, 
and the method was by far the most effective 
possible. The translation of Enoch taught the 
truth of the immortality of the soul as nothing 
else could have done at the time. Its purpose 
was not apologetic so much as pedagogical. It 
was to illuminate the truth rather than to prove 
it. Moreover all the religions round aboyt were 
characterized by manifestations of power by ma- 
gicians and necromancers, and the conviction 
that Jehovah was possessed of power which 
surpassed that of these experts in the mysteries 
was vital to a compelling faith on the part of the 
chosen people. 

This suggests the very important considera- 
tion of the real philosophy of miracle. Its pur- 
pose was to authenticate the messenger of Je- 
hovah by such manifestation of power, in con- 
nection with his message, as convinced the people 
that Jehovah was a mightier God than their gods 
in whom they were trusting. Thus in the mis- 


234 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


sion of Moses the plagues in Egypt smote Egyp- 
tian gods one after another, until this one great 
truth convinced both Israel and Egypt that Je- 
hovah’s power was supreme. So in the test of 
Elijah at Mt. Carmel, the significance of the 
challenge was in the fact that Baal was the sun- 
god, and the test of fire would be final for him. 
Keeping this principle in mind, let us consider 
the book of Jonah, so much discussed in connec- 
tion with this subject. If we consider the ref- 
erence to Jonah as the son of Amittai as identi- 
fying the prophet with that Jonah who prophesied 
in the time of Jeroboam II., then we are in the 
great miracle period of Elijah and Elisha. The 
fact is emphasized by Rawlinson and others that 
at this time the principal god of Nineveh was 
Dagon the fish-god, whose image appeared three 
times as frequently as that of any other god. 

If the philosophy of miracle is to be consistently 
maintained, then in connection with Jonah’s mis- 
sion to Nineveh some manifestation of Jehovah’s 
power must involve the superiority of Israel’s 
God over Dagon. The situation is even strength- 
ened if you declare Jonah to be an allegory. If 
the writer of this parable created the story out 
of his imagination for the moral presented, then 
he so fully realized the philosophy of miracle as 
to see that he must present his prophet as au- 
thenticated in the same manner that other proph- 
ets were, and that a great fish must figure in the 
story in order that Jehovah should be proved su- 


The Place of Miracles 235 


perior to Dagon to the people of Nineveh. Thus 
we are strengthened at either horn of the di- 
lemma, for the purpose of the miracle is consist- 
ently maintained. It was God’s way of teaching 
which was the most effective at the time, and 
therefore the best possible way. 

When we approach the New Testament, we 
find our Lord defining the place and limitations 
of the miracle, as in his words to Philip, in John 
xiv: 10-11, “ Believest thou not that I am in the 
Father, and the Father in me? the words that I 
speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the 
Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 
Believe me that I am in the Father, and the 
Father in me; or else believe me for the very 
works sake.” Then again in His words to 
Thomas in John xx: 29, “ Jesus saith unto him, 
Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast 
believed; blessed are they that have not seen 
me, and yet have believed.” Here we find a real 
value set upon the miracle as a help to faith; but 
a teaching that a better day would come when 
men would not need these objective helps, and 
would discern the spiritual truth for itself. 

But let not those who may have reached 
this higher level of apprehension of the 
truth forget that the children of the kinder- 
garten were not as far advanced. The 
transition was slowly making headway at the 
time of Christ, and He saw the better day; 
but the people were still to find help in the 


236 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


objective lesson, with its manifestation of power 
and illumination of truth. We recall what Dr. 
Dods said, that “the miracles which in the first 
three Gospels appear as the beneficent acts of 
our Lord without ulterior motive, seem in the 
Fourth Gospel to exist for the sake of the teach- 
ing they embody, and the discussions they give 
rise to.”’ This suggests that John saw the real 
value of the miracle, as the Synoptists did not, 
and set it forth in its relation to truth as an 
illumination rather than an argument. 

And yet it would be a great mistake to en- 
courage the view that the presence of the miracle 
justifies the opinion that the record is unhistorical. 
Dr. Bruce discusses this subject vigorously in his 
introduction to the three synoptic Gospels. He 
says: “Those who count the miracle impossible 
are tempted to pronounce the record of the heal- 
ing ministry of Christ unhistorical. This is not 
a scientific procedure. The question of fact 
should be dealt with separately on its own 
grounds, and the question of explicability taken 
up only in the second place. There are good 
reasons for believing that the healing ministry, 
miraculous or not miraculous, was a great fact 
in the public career of Jesus. Nine acts of heal- 
ing, some of them very remarkable, are reported 
in all the synoptical Gospels. The healing ele- 
ment in the ministry is so interwoven with the 
didactic that the former cannot be eliminated 


The Place of Miracles 237 


without destroying the whole story. This is 
frankly acknowledged by Harnack. 

“Still more significant are the theories in- 
vented to explain away the power. . . . 
Men do not theorize about nothing. There were 
remarkable facts urgently demanding explana- 
tion of some sort. . . . It is not scien- 
tific to neglect the phenomena as unworthy 
of notice. As little is it scientific to make 
the solution easy by understatement of the 
facts to be explained. . . . Finally, it is 
not to be supposed that these healing acts, 
though indubitable facts, have no permanent 
religious value. Their use in the evidences of 
Christianity may belong to an antiquated type 
of apologetic, but in other respects their signifi- 
cance is perennial. Whether miraculous or not, 
they equally reveal the wide-hearted benevolence 
of Jesus. They throw a side light on His doctrine 
of God and man, and especially on His conception 
of the ideal of life. . . . Jesus had no sympa- 
thy with the hard antithesis between spirit and 
flesh.” 

To this statement it will be fitting to add 
the words of Dr. Purves: “It does not appear 
possible to account for the rise and course of 
apostolic Christianity except by the recognition 
of the supernatural facts and forces to which 
the books themselves testify. The frank ac- 
knowledgment of the supernatural, together with 


238 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


the perception of the no less truly genetic way in 
which the original faith in Jesus as Messiah was 
unfolded and extended, would seem to be re- 
quired of the historian who wishes to be faith- 
ful to his sources of information and to present 
apostolic Christianity as it was.” 

Yet the statement is frequently made by Chris- 
tian scholars in our day that the miracle has lost 
its apologetic value. While we have recognized 
that it is not necessary for some people to-day in 
order to their perception of the truth; yet we 
have one of the most suggestive proofs that the 
statement is incorrect. The idea back of the state- 
ment, as urged by the anti-miracle advocates, is 
that it would not help faith to-day if the teach- 
ing were accompanied by the healing of the sick. 
But what is the secret of the wide-spread move- 
ment of so-called Christian Science but this very 
belief in healing power? The devotee of this 
new cult will insist that “the demonstration ” is 
the final proof of the reasonableness of his faith. 
Thousands of intelligent men and women, of a 
much higher grade of cultivation than was known 
in Bible times, are thus testifying to the value of 
healing power in connection with a new teach- 
ing. Whatever explanation you may offer of 
this healing which is actually experienced in 
several of these cults of our time, the fact re- 
mains that the faith in the teaching is strength- 
ened by the conviction that the healing power is 
somehow connected with the knowledge of the 


The Place of Miracles 239 


truth. Human nature is a constant quality 
through the years. 

But beyond this instance of current experience, 
it is important to emphasize the fact that the 
Evangelical faith of Christendom is based on the 
miracle of the resurrection of Christ. Back of 
that is the miracle of the incarnation. It is the 
truth of a divine Christ once incarnate and for- 
ever victorious, a living Saviour, which gives 
vitality to our faith. Christian life is not nour- 
ished by the memory of a dead man, but by the 
fellowship of a living God. Christ is something 
more than the greatest personality of the past; 
He is the greatest personality of the present. It 
is in that God-consciousness which breathes in 
His life, as pictured to us by John, that He speaks 
to men saying: “I lay down my life of myself. 
No man taketh it from me. I have power to lay 
it down, and I have power to take it again. This 
commandment have I received of my Father.” 
The appreciation of His continuing work as our 
Advocate involves the faith in a mighty putting 
forth of divine power in His exaltation to the 
throne of God. This manifestation of power in 
all the history of God’s dealing with men, from 
the beginning unto this hour, is the throbbing 
life-blood of that living faith in God and God’s 
love for mankind which runs through all accep- 
tance of revealed truth and all allegiance to the 
manifested Christ. 


XXVIII 


CHRIST AND THE CRITICS 


HAT position must we take concerning 

\) \ the authority of Christ as a teacher, 

in so far as His attitude toward the 
Old Testament writings involved the questions 
of criticism? There are two views held. On 
the one hand, the extreme critics have confidently 
urged that Christ had no concern about these 
questions, and when He referred to Moses or 
David, He simply accommodated Himself to the 
popular opinions of the day. On the other hand, 
the extreme conservatives have urged that unless 
Christ knew the facts about the literary com- 
position of the Old Testament writings, and un- 
less He was incapable of referring to Moses as 
having written a part of the Pentateuch, should 
Moses not have written it; then Christ was not 
reliable as an authority and not infallible as a 
teacher. Neither of these positions, held baldly, 
is justified by the record. 

When Christ referred to the Old Testament, 
it was not His special purpose to give sanction 
to the general view about the man who may have 
written the record. He was not primarily con- 
cerned to endorse any view about the authorship 


240 


Christ and the Critics 241 


‘of the same. But His purpose was to emphasize 
the fact that the authority of God was in the 
truth of the teaching mentioned. His appeal 
was to the teaching as having God’s sanction. 
This was the fact which gave significance to 
the reference. Now this meant that Christ 
counted the teachings as God-given, by the hand 
of whatever individual. Says Dr. Robertson 
Smith: ‘There can be no question that Jesus 
himself believed that God dealt with Israel in 
the way of special revelation, that the old Testa- 
ment contains within itself a perfect picture of 
His gracious relations to His people, and sets 
forth the whole growth of the true religion up 
to its perfect fulness. We cannot depart from 
this view without making Jesus an imperfect 
teacher and an imperfect Saviour. Did He who 
said, ‘No man knoweth the Father but the Son 
and He to whomsoever the Son willeth to re- 
veal Him,’ did He mistake His Father for an- 
other in the pages of the Old Testament? It is 
incredible, incredible upon any theory of the per- 
son of Christ that can be held by Christians.” 

All this involves an imperative conviction that 
Christ recognized the historic validity of the Old 
Testament record. We read that “ beginning at 
Moses and the prophets, He expounded unto 
them in all the Scriptures the things concerning 
Himself.” The historical value of the record, 
which so many critics deem unimportant, must 
be insisted upon as we note Christ’s reference to 


242 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


it. Less than this can never be satisfactory. 
Not that Christ endorsed every part of the record 
as actually accurate history; but that though 
there may be some parts, which we have noted, 
which seem to be doubtful as history, yet the 
general reliability of the record must stand. 

But on the other hand, it will be a great mis- 
take to lose sight of the real character of Christ’s 
authority by claiming for it a special application 
to such questions as arise in the realm of Criti- 
cism. Had Christ specifically asserted authority 
here, the situation would be different. But He 
did not. His insistance upon His message is at 
the point where it illuminates spiritual realities 
and nowhere else. Here His infallible word 
never fails. Here He purposed that it should 
reveal its power as the eternal truth of God. 
Here He unfolded the fundamental principles 
underlying man’s right relation to God and to 
his fellow-man, largely leaving the details of the 
application of those principles to the individual 
soul. 

Here Christ’s authority is supreme, infal- 
lible and eternal. It might have been so, 
doubtless, in other spheres, had He so purposed. 
But He gives us no ground on which to stand 
and theorize about what He might have done. 
We have what He did. There let us rest, and 
not detract from the clear-shining glory of His 
power as the living Word of God by involving 
His authority at points where He Himself did 


Christ and the Critics 243 


not apply it. The literary questions are sec- 
ondary. Christ’s work was the fundamental 
work of giving men to see the truth of God as it 
shines upon the way everlasting. There it 
shines with growing brightness, and will unto 
the endless day. 

Now the fact is that in thus presenting truth 
Christ used the Old Testament as it was in His 
time, and as it is in our day, with its difficulties 
and discrepancies. That did not mean that He 
accepted all of it as binding authority in His 
day, for He set much of it aside. We must not 
forget His words, considered so revolutionary by 
many who heard them: “ Ye have heard,” etc; 
but “I say unto you,” etc. Nor must we forget 
His illuminating commentary upon the fact of 
progressive development in the moral standards 
set up, as revelation unfolded a higher life for 
the people, as He said: “ For the hardness of 
their hearts Moses allowed,” etc. Things al- 
lowed, though not acceptable to God, and now 
forbidden, suggesting other things which have 
disturbed many a reader of the old laws and 
practices, as in the times of the conquest: these 
Christ sets aside forever, as He holds up a 
higher standard, and reveals God’s truth more 
fully to men. 

All of which means that Christ pointed 
to theeternal truth in the Old Testament, 
as abiding authority for the spiritual life, 
while much of the requirement of the Scriptures 


244 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


was no longer authoritative as expressive of the 
will of God. The Epistle to the Hebrews and 
Paul’s Epistles to the Romans and Galatians 
make this truth the more evident. Christ did not 
tell us all that must be set aside now; but men 
are agreeing as to additional items of Old Tes- 
tament sanction which can no longer be supposed 
to be acceptable to God. 

If this fact disturb men, and they say we have 
no authority, since each man must be a judge 
for himself, the only reply to make is that men 
are thus judging in any case, and must always 
do so. Take, for example, the teachings of the 
Sermon on the Mount, accepted by Christians 
as being Christ’s words with all His authority in 
them. What do we see? One man says Christ 
meant just exactly what He says literally, while 
another says He did not. Let us consider care- 
fully this difference of opinion concerning the 
accepted teachings of our Lord. What does it 
compel us to realize regarding Christ’s authority 
in Scripture, and the binding authority of all 
Scripture? It simply compels recognition of the 
fact that, after all, the individual interpretation 
must be involved in the compelling character of 
the teaching. 

Protestantism must never yield one atom 
of that right of individual interpretation, for 
the virility of Christian character is involved 
in its maintenance. Men must be compelled 
by their appreciation of the truth which con- 


Christ and the Critics 245 


strains to genuine living, to righteousness in 
all life and every part of it. If men ask how we 
are to avoid hopeless confusion by thus allowing 
the individual to recognize what he will as au- 
thoritative, our answer is at hand. It is in the 
apparent fact that, while men are thus deciding 
for themselves what is binding and what is not, 
there is a steady growth toward a consensus of 
judgment in the Christian Church regarding the 
teachings of the Master and of the Scriptures. 
That consensus has always been practically unan- 
imous through the centuries regarding the fun- 
damentals of Evangelical faith, the great foun- 
dation-truths and facts on which the living faith 
and strengthening life of Christians are built to- 
day. 

As regards other teachings, supplementary and 
secondary, yet essential to a rounding out of the 
body of the truth, men are coming to see eye to 
eye more and more as the years pass. Take as 
an illustration the matter of slavery. Not very 
long ago good men, earnest Christians, insisted 
that they found divine sanction for and against 
this institution, and the camp was hopelessly di- 
vided. But to-day that cloud is passing. It is one 
of many, and time marks the clearing of the sky. 
But this means that the authority of the Word 
of God is not found in the fact that men must 
accept the teaching because it is in the Bible. 
They thought, from their different points of 
view, (education, prejudice, personal relations, 


246 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


all being involved,) that they both saw the au- 
thority of God for exactly the opposite conditions 
of life. 

Therefore no mechanical acceptance of any 
teaching because it is in the Bible can suf- 
fice. Men must and will see the constraint of 
necessary truth in that teaching. Christ’s teach- 
ing is not true simply because Christ said it, but 
He said it because it is true. Our reassurance is 
in the fact that men, the more they have come to 
independent and honest thinking, the more they 
desire the constraint of the truth in order to 
righteousness, are being brought together to a 
clearer judgment touching a larger reach of the 
truth, and all life is taking on more meaning and 
promising richer fruitage. This is our ground 
for an unshaken confidence that the Spirit who is 
to guide into all truth will continue to guide, 
taking the things of Christ and making them 
plain, and convicting men of sin and righteous- 
ness and judgment, and pointing to the glory of 
a redeemed manhood through Jesus Christ. 


XXIX 
THE PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 


T is reported that ex-President Theodore 
Woolsey was requested, some years before 
his death, to prepare an article for a leading 

quarterly on the subject of inspiration. He posi- 
tively declined on the ground of his incompetency 
to treat a subject so difficult. Dr. John DeWitt, 
for many years professor at New Brunswick 
Seminary, in his book What is Inspiration, re- 
fers to this incident, and adds: ‘“‘We cannot 
doubt that he expressed the feeling of many of 
those who are best qualified to deal with such 
mysteries. Yet, without the slightest misgiving, 
they have yielded their mind, heart, and will to 
the Scriptures as given by the inspiration of 
God. Such undoubting faith is not at all in- 
consistent with a confessed inability to explain 
the divine energy by which the result was pro- 
duced. . . . We may feel painfully that no 
theory has been propounded that relieves all the 
difficulties of the case, yet enjoy an unfaltering 
confidence that the Bible is the word of God. 
For our confidence does not depend upon human 
theories concerning its production, but upon many 
infallible proofs of the divine origin both of the 


247 


248 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


Old Testament and the New, and these intrinsic, 
wrought into their substance, and filling them 
with light, and life, and power.” With what 
better words could we approach a brief consid- 
eration of this difficult subject! The last word 
has not yet been spoken upon it. 

There have been various theories about the 
exact nature of the sun; but none of them altered 
the mighty fact that the sun has gone on shining, 
lighting and heating the earth, ripening harvests, 
drawing water for the clouds, and fulfilling its 
functions as the source of vitality and fruitful- 
ness to the earth. Just so the various theories 
as to the exact nature of inspiration will con- 
tinue to have their advocates; but the Bible will 
remain the inspired word of God, the only in- 
fallible rule of faith and life for men. There was 
a time when different schools of Christians had 
very definite theories of the atonement. But of 
late men are coming to realize that the atone- 
ment is too large a fact about which to assume to 
make an exact and all-sufficient definition. It 
must involve certain great vital essentials in 
God’s provision of salvation through Jesus Christ 
for men; but not many would venture upon the 
temerity which would confidently assert a final 
definition of the atonement. 

Some such feeling is growing in the 
Church regarding the definition of inspiration. 
It is a fact too large for easy definition. 
It is a fact attended by so many details of 


The Problem of Inspiration 249 


minor fact as to lead the most reverent and 
earnest of scholars to feel that we would 
better put our faith in the fruit of it, as the 
blessed gift of God, as we do in the atonement, 
and not suppose that we will lose anything of the 
blessing because we are not ready to make a 
final definition of it. Let devout Christians rest 
in the assurance that while a definition of such 
facts as inspiration and the atonement cannot 
easily be given which will satisfy all men, yet 
the blessed facts themselves remain with all their 
glorious significance for believing souls. 

This is all the more important, when we con- 
sider that many have had an erroneous idea 
about a definite theory of inspiration being neces- 
sary to a vital Christian faith. In his little book 
Inspiration of The Scriptures, President Patton, 
of Princeton, has given us a most important 
statement regarding this matter. Dr. Patton 
says: “I must take exception to the disposition 
on the part of some to stake the fortunes of 
Christianity on the doctrine of Inspiration. Not 
that I yield to any in profound conviction of the 
truth and importance of this doctrine. But it is 
proper for us to bear in mind the immense argu- 
mentative advantage which Christianity has, 
aside altogether from the inspiration of the docu- 
ments on which it rests. I cannot agree with a 
recent writer (Garbett), when he says, ‘If we 
take away the inspired character of the Scripture 
narrative, we really shall possess little more cer- 


250 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


tainty with regard to the facts of our Lord’s 
life than we do to the facts of ancient Roman 
history.’ This passage I cannot but look upon 
as too great a concession to the cause of Ra- 
tionalism. 

“The Christian apologist cannot meet in- 
fidel objections by assuming the doctrine of 
Inspiration. | While the question of historical 
credibility is at issue, the battle must be fought 
on the ground of historical evidence. The ro- 
mances of Strauss and Renan are triumphantly 
answered by proving the early origin of the 
Gospels. . . . Historical criticism places the 
Bible on a level with the most reliable human 
histories. | Ordinary historical evidence is suf- 
ficient to satisfy us with regard to the truthful- 
ness of statements which we find in the writings 
of Tacitus, Cesar, Grote, Gibbon and Macaulay. 
We do not insist upon inspiration on the part of 
these authors as a guarantee of their credibility. 
Their books may contain errors. Instances of 
false reasoning, hasty generalization, incorrect 
judgment may occur in their pages, but of their 
general truthfulness we have no doubt.” 

Let the full force of this most important fact 
be pondered by all thoughtful men. Dr. Patton 
proceeds to show that the Bible is much more than 
a reliable historic document, but he advances to 
that consideration “from its credibility as a lit- 
erary document.” We have shown how Egyp- 
tian and Assyrian monuments confirm the his- 


The Problem of Inspiration 251 


toric reliability of Old Testament records, and 
how the historic material of the early Christian 
centuries places beyond question the reliability of 
the New Testament. Therefore we have the 
Bible as reliable history, which is not dependent 
upon any theory of inspiration for its acceptance. 

We approach this record for the purpose 
of inquiring into its character as the rule 
of faith and life for the Christian Church, 
and we remember that this is the Bible 
which is proving to be the light of life 
to countless men and women through the 
years and in all lands. We find the book claim- 
ing to be the revelation of God’s plan for the 
redemption of the race. The necessity for this 
revelation is stated in the Westminster symbol 
thus: “Although the light of nature and the 
works of creation and providence do so far mani- 
fest the goodness and wisdom and power of God 
as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not 
sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of 
His will, which is necessary unto salvation. 
Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times 
and in divers manners to reveal Himself.” 

This revelation purports to be in mani- 
festations of divine presence and power, in 
messages through chosen spokesmen, in mir- 
acles, in providential history, and finally in 
the person and work of Jesus Christ, to- 
gether with the outpouring of the Holy 
Spirit at Pentecost and the work which 


252 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


the Spirit accomplished through the Christian 
church in unfolding the truth to men as it is in 
Christ. We are told that “holy men spake as 
they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” and that 
all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. This 
divine “ moving ” would seem to have been that 
quickening impulse which involved revelation of 
truth, or illumination of truth, or sympathetic ap- 
preciation of truth, as the man was given the 
vision according to the Holy Spirit’s purpose. 
But it is evident that while these writers were 
inspired of God, they betray the marks of hu- 
man conditions and limitations. We have noted 
in a former chapter that all revelation has borne 
distinctive evidence of being accommodated to 
the finite weaknesses of men. Old Testament 
teaching was not as full or final as that of the 
New Testament, because men were not ready to 
receive it. At the earliest possible moment it 
appears that God gave to men clearer visions and 
higher standards, according as they were ready 
for them. 

When we take a closer inspection of the book, 
we find it to consist of various kinds of material, 
historical, poetica‘, prophetical, ethical and re- 
ligious. Moreover some of this material is mani- 
festly intended to be given as according to the 
will of God, while some of it is not. For in- 
stance, much that men said and did was contrary 
to the will of God. The devil’s lies are here re- 
corded. The arguments of Job’s would-be com- 


The Problem of Inspiration 253 


forters are here. They have been supposed to 
be inspired of God simply because they are 
in the Bible; but God repudiated them as not 
acceptable to Him. It is evident, therefore, that 
much in the Bible is not inspired of God. The 
record of it is reliable, and its lesson is evi- 
dent; but the words themselves are not in- 
spired as truth, for they are not truth. It fur- 
ther appears that all parts of the record are not 
of equal importance. The Westminster symbol 
points out this fact thus: “ All things in Scrip- 
ture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike 
clear unto all; yet those things which are nec- 
essary to be known, believed and observed for 
salvation are so clearly propounded and opened 
in some place of Scripture or other, that not only 
the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of 
the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient 
understanding of them.” 

The meaning of this is evident. While all 
Scripture is given by inspiration of God, some 
parts of the Bible are more necessary than 
others to a knowledge of the way of salva- 
tion. Every part of it is profitable, (the ac- 
counts of man’s failures as well as his obedi- 
ences), and fills out the record of God’s revela- 
tion to and dealings with men. Yet some of 
the teachings herein recorded are fundamental, 
while others are secondary and incidental. It 
logically follows that it has been more impor- 
tant to preserve the fundamental truths of the 


254 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


Bible than to preserve every word and letter that 
has been written. That is to say, the work of the 
Holy Spirit, who moved men to write this record, 
has all along involved the preservation of the 
vital truth, committed as it has been to human 
hands through the centuries. 

Men sometimes ask if it be of vital importance 
that every word and syllable of this record shall 
be preserved as the original writing came from 
the hands of those who produced it. The answer 
is found in the fact that we have some fourteen 
hundred manuscripts of the Bible, and no two 
of them exactly alike. The only possible mean- 
ing of this fact is that God has not been concerned 
about preserving the record from the marks of 
human imperfection in its transmission. Let it 
be noted that the differences are relativély in- 
significant, and that all these manuscripts agree 
in the vital truth. It follows that while the facts 
teach us not to swear by the letter which killeth, 
we are to realize that the Spirit of the truth, 
which giveth life, breathes in all the various 
copies of the Scriptures from the beginning until 
now. New Testament writers generally are not 
careful to quote Old Testament passages verba- 
tim; but are content to give the real meaning of 
the words to which they refer. 

The question as to whether the existing 
discrepancies were in the original text, or 
crept in at the hands of copyists and com- 
mentators, can never be answered. The orig- 


The Problem of Inspiration 255 


inal manuscripts are beyond our reach. The 
validity of inspiration cannot be impugned by 
any theory about the original autographs. God 
evidently deems the Bible as we now have it 
sufficiently pure for His purpose. Every day its 
sufficiency is demonstrated among all sorts and 
conditions of men. Here we rest in the confi- 
dence that we need not theorize about original 
manuscripts. If the present text is sufficient, an 
original text like unto it would be equally suf- 
ficient. We have suggested in former chapters 
the probable way in which inaccuracies have 
crept in at the hands of copyists and later com- 
mentators, and such considerations justify the 
opinion that the original writings were more free 
from error than those we have. And yet it is not 
essential that it should have been so. God has 
used fallible men to give us the infallible truth in 
the setting of human limitations. The infallible 
truth is not lost thereby. 

The whole record carries an atmosphere of re- 
liability in its spirit and method of witnessing to 
the truth. Paul writes in 1 Cor. ii: 12-13, “We 
have received not the spirit of the world, but the 
spirit which is of God, which things also we 
speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom 
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” 
Archdeacon Farrar says Paul’s view of inspira- 
tion led him to make “the words of Scripture 
co-extensive and identical with the words of 
God,” and that “the controversial use which he 


256 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


makes of Old Testament passages attaches con- 
sequences of the deepest importance to what an 
ordinary reader might regard as a mere gram- 
matical expression.” The illustration which he 
cites is the familiar reference of the apostle in 
Gal. iii: 16, where Paul argues from the singular 
rather than the plural form of the word “ seed ” 
in God’s promise to Abraham. So when Christ 
says: “It is written,” the reader does not dis- 
tinguish the particular utterance as more ac- 
curate than any other, but recognizes the force of 
the teaching to be an endorsement of the divine 
authority that rests in all the Old Testament. 
We are taught in 2 Pet. i: 19-21, that “ we have 
also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto 
ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that 
shineth in a dark place, . . . knowing this 
first that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any 
private interpretation. For the prophecy came 
not in the old time by the will of man; but holy 
men of God spake as they were moved by the 
Holy Ghost.” 

In this connection attention should be called to 
one of the most significant facts in all Bible 
study. The important words in a sentence, which 
we may call the truth-burdened words, and which 
are found in all manuscripts alike, are the words 
which the Bible student examines with special 
care. Our libraries are filled with the commen- 
taries of the centuries, and the main object of 
these comments is to teach us that these vitally 


The Problem of Inspiration 257 


important words have a certain colour of mean- 
ing, a certain phase of significance, a certain deli- 
cate shade of truth, which men must understand 
in order to appreciate the exact mind of the Spirit 
of God in the teaching considered. Thus the 
great argument made by every commentator who 
ever published a book has pointed to the fact that 
the Holy Spirit, again and again, has conveyed 
to us a meaning so precise and so distinctive that 
no other word known to man will convey the 
truth so well as the one word which the men who 
wrote the message were inspired to use. Keep- 
ing this fact in mind, we shall be helped in the 
practical appreciation of the great work of in- 
spiration as it preserves for us the revelation of 
God. 

Having these considerations in mind, having 
also in mind those facts noted in the progress of 
our studies, in former chapters, regarding dis- 
crepancies in the text, having furthermore in 
mind the discussion regarding the divine au- 
thority in the Scriptures considered in the pre- 
ceding chapter, we ask ourselves what sort of 
definition of inspiration is possible which will 
adequately set forth the real character of the 
Bible as the word of God and the infallible rule 
of faith and life for men? The most helpful 
discussion of the subject will be found in the 
book of Dr. DeWitt already mentioned. No dif- 
ficulty is evaded, no discrepancy is denied, no 
moral blemish, as determined by our present 


258 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


standards, is overlooked; but every difficulty is 
carefully and frankly considered, and every part 
of the book is given its proper relation to the 
whole. 

Dr. DeWitt’s key to the whole problem is 
found in the definition of revelation, in un- 
folding which he discovers the real character of 
inspiration. He considers revelation from the 
standpoint of three questions: “ What is re- 
vealed? To whom is it revealed? and With what 
design?” To the first question he answers: 
“The Bible throughout its whole extent reveals 
God—the living God.” This revelation is not 
in the abstract form of philosophic thought, but 
“in voluntary relations with men, as a wise, 
righteous, and almighty moral Governor, a 
loving Father, and a gracious Saviour.” q 
“The Revealer is Himself the revelation. No 
attribute of His nature is more strongly marked 
than that which is described by the adjective 
self-revealing. He is always manifesting Himself 
in aspects important to men. This was the light 
shining in darkness from the beginning.” 

Now this revelation was first of all to the 
prophet, and through the prophet to the people. 
The prophet was only partially receptive to the 
divine truth, and the people were much more ig- 
norant than he. He took in what he could, and 
gave the people the best he had. “ He saw ob- 
scurely, but he saw. Degraded heathendom must 
receive some glimpse of a higher divinity than 


The Problem of Inspiration 259 


ever before recognized—a living God, a spiritual 
God, a personal God, a holy God; one that can 
see, hear, speak, promise, threaten, reward, pun- 
ish, projecting Himself into the life and history of 
men, so far as they were capable of apprehend- 
ing Him.” 

When he tells us the purpose of this revela- 
tion, Dr. DeWitt declares it to be “the produc- 
tion of a perfect humanity.” Dealing with the 
moral blemishes in the Old Testament records, 
he follows the thought of Canon Mozley in as- 
serting that “a religion from God, embodying 
the highest conception, and opening up before 
men a glorious future of knowledge, purity, love, 
and blessedness in divine fellowship, must be re- 
vealed progressively. If it had been at once pro- 
claimed in its higher and purer form, men in 
their moral darkness and degradation could not 
have received it. It must come to them through 
their own moral atmosphere, and modified by its 
obstructions, misapprehensions, and confusion on 
all ethical questions. It could only be appre- 
hended gradually, as accommodated to the pre- 
possessions which must for an indefinite time 
shut out the perfected and absolute truth and 
right. So modified, it might by degrees effect a 
moral transformation, rectify unworthy concep- 
tions of God, elevate the ethical standard, and 
lift the race to a higher plane. From this vantage 
ground a fresh revelation of justice, holiness, and 
love of God as crystallized in a perfect man, the 


260 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


representative head of redeemed humanity, could 
be apprehended, appreciated, embraced, and ab- 
sorbed, and thus the whole mass should be 
changed into the image of God in all moral per- 
fections.” 

This view recognizes a mixture of the 
true and false, and a temporary accommo- 
dation in matters of justice, love, and truth to 
the infirmities of men. This process is justified 
because it is looking forward and upward all 
the time. Christ said it was for the hardness of 
men’s hearts that Moses allowed that which was 
not pleasing to God. The Lord Himself now 
lifts men to the higher level. A progressive rev- 
elation must be judged by its end. Human na- 
ture makes it inevitable, and human progress in 
its light is its vindication. 

After showing how the fulness of the perfect 
revelation is in Jesus Christ, Dr. DeWitt gives 
us the following definition of inspiration: “ In- 
spiration is a special energy of the Spirit of God 
upon the mind and heart of selected and pre- 
pared human agents which does not obstruct nor 
impair their native and normal activities, nor mi- 
raculously enlarge the boundaries of their knowl- 
edge, except where essential to the inspiring pur- 
pose; but stimulates and assists them to the clear 
discernment and faithful utterance of truth and 
fact, and when necessary brings within their 
range truth or fact which could not otherwise 
have been known. By such direction and aid, 


The Problem of Inspiration 261 


through spoken or written words, in combination 
with any divinely ordered circumstances with 
which they may be historically interwoven, the 
result contemplated in the purpose of God is 
realized in a progressive revelation of His wis- 
dom, righteousness, and grace for the instruction 
and moral education of men. 

“The revelation so produced is _ perma- 
nent and infallible for all matters of faith 
and practice; except so far as any given 
revelation may be manifestly partial, pro- 
visional, and limited in its time and condi- 
tions, or may be afterwards modified or super- 
seded by a higher and fuller revelation, adapted 
to an advanced period in the redemptive process 
to which all revelation relates as its final end and 
glorious consummation. No proposed definition 
of God’s inspiring grace can be accepted as com- 
plete unless it has been formulated (1) in the light 
of the grand central truth in which inspiration and 
revelation alike culminate, that Jesus Christ as a 
person, ‘the only-begotten of the Father,’ is the 
final, perfect, and the only perfect revelation of 
God to men; and (2) with due regard to the 
radical difference between the words of Christ, 
who is Himself the truth, and those of all inspired 
teachers, as between the primary and every sec- 
ondary source of divine knowledge and author- 
ity. All historic, prophetic, and didactic revela- 
tion of God in the inspired Books of the Old and 
New Testament, is inferior and subordinate to 


262 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


His revelation of personal truth and grace in the 
Christ of the historic Gospels; and whatsoever 
the former may contain that is incongruous 
therewith, whatever be the explanation of its in- 
congruity, is not to be held as authoritative for 
us, but is virtually superseded, as an imperfect 
and provisional inspiration.” 

Such is the definition which is quoted in full 
as one than which it would be difficult to produce 
a better. It gathers up into itself those state- 
ments about all the perplexing problems which 
are relevant, and discriminates each one in a 
most effective manner. Let men determine their 
conception of the Bible in the light of this de4- 
nition, and old-time difficulties will disappear, and 
the clear-shining truth will become increasingly 
luminous. Approaching thus to Christ as the 
final Teacher of the truth, we repeat our confi- 
dence concerning the increase of His authority 
in the minds and hearts of men, because we be- 
hold the growing number of His faithful fol- 
lowers seeing eye to eye more clearly, and more 
earnestly following His will. In the highest and 
truest sense, therefore, men are finding this Bible 
to be the inspired word of God, the only infal- 
lible rule of faith and life, now and for all time. 


XXX 


‘THE ABIDING WORD OF GOD 


\ , TE have noted the movement of modern 
Criticism through about two hundred 
years. In many of the great centres 

of human learning the Bible has been cast aside 

in unbelief. Men who have been counted pro-! 
ficient in human wisdom have never learned that} 

“all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge ”' 

are found in Jesus Christ. Yet during these same 

two centuries wonderful streams of life have 
flowed out to the world from this Bible. Out of 

Germany came the Moravians carrying the light 

of life to men dying in the darkness of sin. Out 

of Great Britain and America went the mission- 
ary movements which girdle the earth to-day with 
lines of light and blessing. Within these cen- 
turies the great Bible Societies of Christendom 
have sent out millions of copies of the Scriptures, 
without note or comment, and immortal souls 
have been saved unto God through the instru- 
mentality of the inspired Word. Never in all the 
years was the Bible so evidently the power of 

God and the wisdom of God unto the salvation 

of men. 

There are many instances recorded of the sav- 
263 


264 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


ing power of the truth, but none more remark- 
able than the following has come to the writer’s 
knowledge. Recently the Rev. Eugene P. Dun- 
lap, D.D., of Bangkok, Siam, a missionary in that 
country for twenty-five years under the Presby- 
terian Board, and a man most highly honoured 
by all who know him, related this incident in 
New York City. A few years ago Dr. Dunlap 
learned that the Lieutenant Governor of one of 
the provinces in the Malay Peninsula was a 
Christian believer, though the man had never 
met a Christian before his conversion. Dr. Dun- 
lap sought him out, was welcomed with the ex- 
clamation—“ Hosanna!” and heard from the 
man’s own lips the remarkable story of his life. 
At the age of forty he was still a worshipper of 
idols, but at that time, while engaged in making 
some new idols with his own hands, he stopped 
in his work to ponder the wonderful structure of 
the human hand, with its capacities and power. 
Then the thought widened to the appreciation of 
the creative power in the universe. Calling his 
wife, they reasoned together and agreed that it 
was folly to worship the creatures of their own 
hands. 

Gathering together their idols, they destroyed 
all of them, and returning to the room which had 
long been set apart as a place of worship, they 
asked themselves what or whom they should wor- 
ship. Reasoning along the line of their new con- 
victions, these mew worshippers determined 


The Abiding Word of God = 265 


henceforth to give the allegiance of their souls to 
The Greatest in the Universe, and for thirty years 
they entered daily into their sanctuary and wor- 
shipped Him, of whom Paul writes: ‘“ The in- 
visible things of God from the creation of the 
world are clearly seen, being understood by the 
things that are made, even his eternal power and 
Godhead.” With sincere hearts they strove to 
do that which was in keeping with the law writ- 
ten upon their hearts, all the time longing for 
more light which would give them intelligent 
and adequate conceptions of the unknown God. 
They were “ without excuse” regarding idolatry, 
but they did not yet know God as God would 
have men know Him. 

The allotted threescore years and ten were 
spent, but at the age of seventy years he 
heard of a man who was selling a wonder- 
ful book said to contain the truth. Im- 
pelled by a strange confidence, he sought out this 
man and asked about the character of the book. 
For reply he was told it revealed The Greatest 
Being in the Universe to men. “ Ah!” he ex- 
claimed, “I want that book!” Hurrying to his 
home, he sat down with his wife on the very 
verandah where Dr. Dunlap heard his story, and 
together they read the book from the beginning 
to the end, day after day. When they came to 
the record of Paul’s address at Mars Hill, he 
said: ‘“ Wife, we have been in Athens for these 
thirty years!” The knowledge of God in all the 


266 Bible Criticism and the Average Man 


fulness of the revelation which culminates in 
Christ flooded their souls with an unspeakable 
joy. 

When the old man finished his story, he 
opened a silver box on the table, and took from 
it a paper which was much worn, and said: 
“Here is my faith. People ask me what I be- 
lieve, and I have written it out on this paper.” 
With profound interest, Dr. Dunlap took the 
statement to discover what would be the faith of 
a man, with nothing but the open Bible in his 
hand, and the guidance of the Spirit of God. The 
paper contained every vital essential to the Evan- 
gelical Christian faith. The Lieutenant Gover- 
nor and his wife had been living in exact accord 
with the teachings of the New Testament, joyful 
Christians, and faithful witnesses for Christ to 
their fellow-men. For the people round about 
him the Old Testament reflected their moral 
status, in its descriptions of the idolatrous na- 
tions in Israel’s time. But for himself, as he 
moved through the Old Testament, finding it 
quite up to date for most of the people of Siam 
in its restrictions, he followed the hope of Israel 
into the New Testament fulfillment, and found 
the old and partial superseded and filled full in 
the new and completed revelation of God and His 
will in Jesus Christ. 

This is our Bible, and sufficient “lamp 
to our feet, and light to our path.” Says 
Dr. DeWitt: “It sweeps over the vast spaces 


The Abiding Word of God = 267 


that separate us from man’s first existence 
upon the earth. No subtle illusions, no ingenious 
sophistries, no artful disguises that error or 
wickedness may assume, no fog-banks of false- 
hood and wrong can withstand its penetrative 
gleam. This light of life illumines all history. 
It tests all that the busy brain of man has con- 
ceived, or his hands have wrought. It is ‘living 
and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged 
sword, and piercing to the dividing asunder of 
soul and spirit, of both the joints and the marrow, 
and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of 
the heart.’” As it proved the Bread of Life to 
the nobleman of Siam, so it is proving to be to 
thousands of men in every land and clime. Now 
as ever, the secret of all regeneration and the 
progress of all redemption is in the fact that men 
are “being born again, not of corruptible seed, 
but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which 
liveth and abideth forever.” 





Index 


Aszott, FE. A., on the Gos- 
pels, 165. 

Abbott, Ezra, on the Gnos- 
tic’s acceptance of John’s 
Gospel, 219. 

Acts of the Apostles, The, 
171; Lukan authorship 
of, 171; McGiffert on, 


171. 

Adam, the historic, 93. 

Addis on Staerk, 23. 

Akkadian record of the 
flood, 78. 

Allegory in Genesis, 93; in 
the prophets, 160; in the 
book of Revelat.on, 230. 

Amarna, Tel el, tablets of, 
74. 

Ambrose on the Psalms, 
142. 

Amos, the book of, 156; 
unity of, 157. 

Antiquity of man, 92. 

Alford, Dean, on 2 Thess., 
192. 

Apocalypse, as distin- 
guished from prophecy, 


153. 

Astruc on the Mosaic au- 
thorship of Genesis, 55. 
Atonement, theories of the, 

248. 
Average man, the, 21. 


BaBYLONIAN script in use 
in early history of Ca- 
naan, 74. 


Balaam, episode of, 100. 

Baruch, the book of, 155. 

Bauer’s influence on the 
critical movement, 163. 


Beecher, J., on expert 
authority, 22. 
Beecher, H. W., on the 


twenty-third Psalm, 143. 
Bible, the, 26; explanation 
of unique character, 27s 
its influence increasing, 
29; Geo. Adam Smith on, 


47. 
Bissell, E. C., on Genesis in 
Colours, 62. 
Blackie, J. S., on Wolfian 
theory about Homer, 37. 
Blass on the Acts, 173. 
Bleek on the Pentateuch, 
59, 86; on Numbers, rio. 
Bliss, the discoveries of, 75. 
sar of the Origins, the, 


Briggs, C. A., on Criticism, 
35; on the Mosaic au- 
thorship of the Penta- 
teuch, 81. 

Brown, Francis, on the su- 
periority of the Hebrew 
Scriptures, 70; article on 
Chronicles, 130. 

Bruce on the Gospels, 166; 
on the validity of the 
Gospel miracles, 236. 

Brugsch Bey on the accu- 
rate Egyptology of the 
Pentateuch, 78. 


269 


270 


Catvrn on the Psalms, 143. 

Canon of Scripture, and the 
New Testament, 181 

Chaucer’s vocabulary illus- 
trative of Daniel’s, 154. 

Cheyne on the critical im- 
agination, 68; on Isaiah, 
149; on Micah, 158. 

Christ and the Critics, 240; 
on Old Testament writ- 
ings, 240; distinctive au- 
thority of, 242; His char- 
acter portrayed, not de- 
scribed, 163; the place of 
miracles defined by, 235. 

Christian critics to be hon- 
oured, 44. 

Chronicles, the books of, 
127, 130. 

Chronology in Genesis, 92. 

Church, Dean, on Criti- 
cism’s output, 63. 

Clement of Rome on 2 
Peter, 185. 

Clement of Alexandria on 
Hebrews, 210; on John’s 
banishment, 220. 

Code of the Covenant, the, 
61; the Deuteronomic, 
61; the Levitical, 62. 

Cook, Canon, on Egyptol- 
ogy in Exodus, 08. 

Coleridge on the Bible, 27. 

Colossians, epistle to the, 
197, 198. 

Colossian heresy, the, 108. 

Confidence, a lesson in, 41. 

Conservative critics should 
be recognized, 52, 53. 

Corinthians, First Epistle 
to the, 193; Second Epis- 
tle to the, 193. 

Credibility of the Scripture 
records, 250. 

Critics over confident, 24. 

Critic, The, in the discus- 


Index 


sion of Thackeray’s pa- 
pers, 38 sa. 
ae ry imagination, the, 


Criticism proper, 32; @ 
precarious science at best, 


39. 
Crystallization theory, the, 
59. 


Dacon, the fish god of 
Nineveh, 234. 

Daniel, the book of, 153 sq. 

David’s life and work, 127. 

Deuteronomic code, the, 61. 

Deuteronomy, the book of, 
113; theories as to au- 
thorship, 114 sq. 

Deca theory, the, 


I. 

De Wette on the Penta- 
teuch, 57, 59; on Num- 
bers, 107. 

De Witt on Inspiration, 247 
Sq., 257 Sq. 

Disagreement among the 
critics, 68, 97. 

Discrepancies, 
alleged, 132. 

Document theory, the, 53. 

Dods, Marcus, on John’s 
Gospel, 217, 223, 225. 

Domitian’s persecution, 229. 

Double narrative in Gene- 
sis, 56. 

Driver, Canon, on Leviti- 
cus, 101; on Isaiah, 145 


sq. 
Dunlap, E. P., on the suffi- 
ciency of the Bible, 264. 


Exsep Tos, of Jerusalem, 74. 
Ecclesiastes, the book of, 


actual and 


143. 
Egyptology of the Penta- 
teuch, 77. 


Index 


ao a on the Pentateuch, 
Biohist, the, and the Jeho- 


Ee eciche dia Biien, warn- 
ing against, 164. 

Ephesians, the Epistle to 
the, 200. 

Erman on the culture of the 
early Syrians, 76. 

Evangelical faith cannot be 
shaken, 162. 

Evans, L. J., on dangers of 
criticism, 69. 

Ewald’s theory of the Pen- 
tateuch, 60; on the unity 
of Job, 141; on Isaiah, 


145. 

Eusebius on Papias, 166; 
on 2 Peter, 185; on the 
Pastoral Epistles, 203. 

Exodus, the book of, 95; 
the purpose of, 95. 

Ezekiel, the book of, 152. 


FarIRBAIRN, PRINCIPAL, on 
Criticism, 34; on Christ’s 
life, 164; on the articles 
of Abbott and Schmiedel 
in the Enc. Biblica, 166. 

Farrar, Archdeacon, on the 
Critics, 62; on theories 
about Daniel, 154; on 
Paul’s conception of in- 
spiration, 255. 

Fragment theory, the, 57. 

Froude on Job, 27, 141. 

Ga.aTIANS, the Epistle to 
the, 192. 


Geike on the ark of thé 
covenant, 137. 

Genesis in colours, 89; the 
book of, 88; plan of, 89. 

Gesenius on the superior 
literary character of the 


271 


Pentateuch, as compared 
with post-exilic writings, 


or. 

Gibeah and the Tabernacle, 
138. 

Gladstone on various tests 
of the value of the Scrip- 
tures, 25; on the Wolfian 
theory about Homer, 37. 

Gloag, P. J., on the Pas- 
toral Epistles, 206. 

Goethe on the Bible, 26. 

Gospels, the synoptic, 162. 

Graf’s theory of tne Penta- 
teuch, 61 


Gramberg on the Penta- 
teuch, 55. 
fe U. S., on the Bible, 


Green, W. H., on the frag- 
ment theory, 57. 

Gregory, D. S., on the four 
Gospels, 168 

HAgAREUR, the book of, 
156. 

Haggai, the book of, 156. 

Harnack on John, 221; on 
the miracles, 237. 

Harper, W. R., on_super- 
iority of the Hebrew 
Scriptures, 71. 

aa on Pentateuch, 

Eine Dictionary of 
the Bible, 130. 

ioc J., on the Acts, 


Hens the Epistle to the. 
208. 


Hengstenberg on the au- 
thenticity of the Penta- 
teuch, 86. 

Herschel on the Bible, 26. 

Hesy, Tel el, tablets, 75. 

Hexateuch, the, T19. 


272 


Historic Christianity, 250. 

Hobbes, Thomas, on Mosaic 
Authorship, 54. 
omer, critical 
about, 36 sq. 

Honour to honourable crit- 
ics, 46. 

Grine the book of, 156, 


158. 
Hughes, J. S., on the book 
of Revelation, 231. 
Hupfeld’s theory of the Pen- 
tateuch, 60. 


theories 


ILttceN on the Pentateuch, 


55: 

Inspiration, the problem of, 
247. 

Irenaeus on John’s Gospel, 
219; on the book of Rev- 
elation, 2209. 

Isaiah, the book of, 145. 


JamEs, the Epistle of, 182. 

Jasher, the book of, 120. 

Jehovist and Elohist, 56. 

Jeremiah, the book of, 151. 

Jerome on the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, 210. 

Job, the book of, 141. 

Joel, the book of, 156. 

John’s writings, 216. 

John’s banishment, 228. 

Jonah and miracles, 234; 
the book of, 159. 

Joshua, the book of, 119; 
his relation to Moses, 122; 
Ewald and Knobel on, 


121. 

Jowett on 1 Thes. 190. 
Judaistic tendency in the 
early Church, 176, 102. 

Jude, the Epistle of, 188. 

Judges, the book of, 124; 
silent about the Taberna- 
cle, 125. 


Index 


Justin Martyr on the book 
of Revelation, 226. 


KatisH on Exodus, 95. 

Kant on the Gospels, 26. 

Keil on Numbers, 108. 

Kindergarten age of the 
race, 233. 

King, H. C., definition of 
Criticism, 33; on distinc- 
tions as to Criticism, 70; 
on a simpler theory of the 
composition of the Penta- 
teuch, 122. 

Kings, the books of, 129. 

Knobel on the Pentateuch, 


59. 
Koppe on Isaiah, 145. 
Kuenen on the Pentateuch, 
61; on the time of its 
compilation, 84; differs 
from other critics, 22. 


LacHISH discovered, 75. 

Lamentations, the book of, 
144. 

Levitical code, 62. 

Leviticus, the book of, 100; 
tokens of early origin, 


102. 
Liberal Christian critics to 
be recognized, 47. 
Liberty in research desired, 


23. 
Lightfoot on the Epistle to 
the Philippians, 202. 
Literary activity in early 
Canaan, 74. 
Literary Criticism, 32. 
Logia of Jesus, 166. 


Luke’s Gospel, 167, 169; 
Lukan authorship of 
Acts, I7I sq. 


Luther on the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, 210. 


Index 


Mayor prophets, 145. 
Malachi, the book of, 156. 
Manuscripts, the original, 
of the Scriptures, 254. 
Marcion on John’s Gospel, 


219. 
Margoliouth on Isaiah, 147 


sq. 
Mark’s Gospel, 160. 
Matthew’s Gospel, 168. 
Mead, C. M., on Criticism, 


32. 
Micah, the book of, 
158. 
Minor Prophets, 156. 
Miracles, the place of, 232; 
the philosophy of, 233; 
G. A. Smith on, 43; in 
the Gospels, Dods on, 
222; Bruce on, 236. 
Modified Document Theory, 


156, 


Ane Patenite facts from the, 


73- 

Moravians, the, 263. 

Mosaic authorship of the 
Pentateuch, 54 sq., 84. 

Moses, the historic, 81; and 
the authorship of Genesis, 
56: in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, 215. 

Mozley, Canon, on pro- 
gressive revelation, 259. 

Muratorian Canon, the, 205. 

McGiffert, A. C., his book 
The Apostolic Age, 51; 
on the Gospels, 167; on 
the Acts, 171; on Paul, 
177 sq.; on the Epistle of 
James, 182; on the clos- 
ing chapters of the Epis- 
tle to the Romans, 195; 
on the Epistle to the Co- 
lossians, 199; on the Epis- 
tle to the Ephesians, 200; 
on the Pastoral Epistles, 


273 


203; on the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, 210; on the 
Epistles of John, 216; on 
the Gospel of John, 226; 
on the book of Revela- 
tion, 227. 


Nauvum the book of, 156. 

Nicol, Robertson, on the 
Bible, 27. 

Nineveh’s gods, 234. 

Numbers, the book of, 107; 
Mosaic authorship of, 
II0. 


OsaptAH, the book of, 156. 

Onesimus in the Epistles to 
Philemon and the Colos- 
sians, 198. 


Papras on the Logia, 166. 

Pastoral Epistles, the, 203. 

Patton on Inspiration, 249 
sq. 

Paul’s personal experience, 
178, 179; influence in the 
early Church, 177; con- 
tention with Peter, 180; 
various epistles, 190 sq. 

Pentateuch, the, theories 
about, 54; the author- 
ship of, 54 sq.; arguments 
of the critics as to, 63. 

Persecution in the early 
Church, 200. 

Peter, the Epistles of, 183, 
184. 

Petrie, Dr. F., discoveries 


by, 75. i 
Philemon, the Epistle to, 


97. 

Philippians, the Epistle to 
the, 202. 

Pheenician writing, 73. 

Physical science and the Bi- 
ble, 41. 


274 


Plato and Socrates, 163. 

Poetical books of the Bi- 
ble, 141. 

Polycarp opinions of, 219. 

Priests, theories about the, 


126, 135. 
Prophets, the Major, 145; 
the Minor, 156. 
Proverbs, the book of, 143. 
Psalms, the book of, 142. 


Purves, Geo. T., on the 
Acts, 172; on miracles, 
237. 


RAMSAY, Pror., on the his- 
toric value of the Acts, 
173, 175. 

Rawlinson on the Egyptol- 
ogy of the Pentateuch, 
77; on Judges, 103; on 
the gods of Nineveh, 234. 

Redactors, the, 60, 67. 

Reimarus on the Mosaic 
authorship of Genesis, 


54. 

Renan on the Acts, 173; on 
John’s Gospel, 222. 

Revelation, the book of, 
226; the process of rev- 
elation progressive, 259. 

Roentgen’s discovery of the 
X ray, 22. 

Romans, the Epistle to the, 


194. 


SABBATICAL year, the, 103. 

Samuel, the books of, 124. 

Sanday, Prof., on Tatian’s 
Harmony, 219. 

Schmiedel on the Gospels, 
165. 

Science, the two-fold de- 
mands of, 

aia scholarship, what 


? 66 sq. 


Index 


Shiloh, the place of the 
Ark, and the Tabernacle, 
125, 138. 

Siamese Governor, story of 
the conversion of, 

Simon, Richard, on Mosaic 
authorship, 54. 

Sinaitic Peninsula, 98. 

Smith, George A., address 
of, at Edinburgh, 47 sq. 

Smith, Robertson, on the 
fulness of revelation, 28; 
on Christ as a teacher, 


241. 
Song of Songs, the, which 
is Solomon’s, 143. 
Specialists disagree, 21. 
Spinoza on Mosaic author- 
ship, 54. 
Staehiin’ s critical imagina- 
tion, 97. 
Staerk, Addis on, 23. 
Stanley on the Tabernacle, 


137. 
Stewart, Dr. Alexander, on 
the Pentateuch, 118. 
Strauss on the Gospels, 162. 
Study of the Bible advanc- 
ing, 264. 
Sanger theory, 58. 
Synoptic Gospels, 162. 


TABERNACLE, the, conten- 
tion concerning, 98; 
Judges silent about, 125; 
theories about, 135. 

Tatian’s Harmony of the 
Gospels, 219. 

Temple, the, and the Tab- 
ernacle, 135, 137. 

Tertullian on the Hebrews, 
210; on John’s banish- 
ment, 220. 

Thackeray, discussion re- 
garding, 38. 


Index 


Thessalonians, First Epis- 
tle of, 190; Second Epis- 
tle of, I9gI. 

Tubingen School, 163. 

Tuck on the Pentateuch, 59. 


Ur of the Chaldees identi- 
fied, 79. 


Van Dyxe Henry, on the 
Bible, 24. 
Vater on the Pentateuch, 


57: 

Victor Hugo, on the book 
of Revelation, 230. 

Vitringa on Mosaic author- 
ship, 54. 

Vogel on the “we” pas- 
sages in Acts, 173. 


Warp, W. H., on errors in 
Assyrian records, 71. 

Watkins on value of patris- 
tic testimony, 218. 

Wellhausen, Julius, on the 


ao 


Pentateuch, 61; on the 
Tabernacle, 136, 139. 

Westcott, Canon, on rela- 
tion of the book of Rev- 
elation to the Fourth 
Gospel, 227. 

Westminster Confession on 
the need of a revelation, 
88; on the character of 
different parts of Scrip- 
ture, 251, 253. 


Wilbour’s discovery at 
Luxor, 78. 
Wisdom Literature, the, 


143. 

Wolfian theory about Ho- 
mer, 30. 

Woolsey, Ex-president, on 
Inspiration, 247. 

Word of God, the abiding, 
263. 


ZECHARIAH, the book of, 


156. 
Zephaniah, the book of, 156. 


FICTION sornorFACT 
THE INFORMING SORT 


25th 1,000 
Deborah. A Tale of the Times of Judas 
Maccabeus. By James M. Luvuptow. 


Illustrated, 12mo. Cloth, $1.50. 


“In the prevailing desert of hot-house sentiment and over- 
drawn realism, a story like Deborah is a veritable oasis. It must 
certainly prove a work of continued favor among those readers 
who delight in vivid pictures of great historical episodes and re- 
joice in a book pure in tone and uplifting.""—Evening Star 


By the author of “The Spanish Brothers” 


Under Calvin’s Spell. A Historical Ro- 
mance of Old Geneva. By D. Atcock. 
Illustrated. $1.50, 


“A historical novel of the time of Calvin and the Huguenots, 
the scene centering in Geneva but shifting at times into Savoy 
and France. The plot is vigorous with action, suspense, sur- 
prises and critical situations.” 


The Setting and Times of “Quo Vadis." 
Onesimus, Christ’s Freeman. By 
Cuar.es E. Corwin. _ Illustrated, 1z2mo, 
Cloth, $1.25. 


“CA work of decided merit, not only in the plot and its work- 
ing out, but also in the skill with which the author has availed 
himself of the meagre Biblical material.".—The Outlook, 


Bishop Brooks and the Boston Slums. 
The Bishop’s Shadow. By Mrs. I. T. 
Tuurston. With illustrations by M. 


Ecxerson. 12mo, Cloth, $1.25. 


“‘A captivating story of dear Phillips Brooks and a little 
street gamin of Boston, The book sets forth the almost match- 
less character of the Christlike bishop in most loving and lovely 
lines.""—The Interior, 


FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY 
NEW YORK CHICAGO TORONTO 





VV RO Soke ose TE 
ROBERT E. SPHEHR 


MISSIONARY PRINCI- 
PLES AND PRACTICE. 


A Discussion of Christian 
Missions and some Criti- 
cisms upon them. 8vo, 
cloth, net $1.50. 


THE PRINCIPLES OF 


JESUS. 


As applied to some Ques- 
tions of to-day. 16mo, 
cloth, net 80c. 


CHRIST AND LIFE. 
Papers on the Practice of 
the Christian Life. 16mo, 
cloth, net $1.00. 

REMEMBER 

JESUS CHRIST. 


And other talks about 
Christ and the Christian 
Life. Long 16mo, cloth, 
75C- 
STUDIES OF THE MAN 
CHRIST JESUS. 
Twelfth Thousand. Long 
16mo, cloth, 75c. 
STUDIES OF THE 
MAN PAUL. 


Uniform with the Man 
Christ Jesus, Long 16mo, 
cloth, 75c. 


MISSIONS AND POLITICS 
In ASIA. 


Studies of the Spirit of the 
Eastern peoples, the pres- 
ent makingofhistory in 
Asia, and the part therein 
of Christian Missions. 
Student’s Lectures on Mis- 
sions, Princeton, 1I2mo, 
cloth, $1,00. 


A MEMORIAL OF A 
TRUE LIFE. 
A Biography of HuGH 
MCALLISTER BEAVER. 


With Portrait, 12mo, 
cloth, $1,00, 


GAMBLING AND 
BErrinc. 
A Frank Talk to Young 


Men of To-day, paper, net 
Toc, 


THE SITUATION 
IN CHINA. 
A Record of Cause and 


Effect. I2mo, paper, net 
Toc, 


FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY 


NEW YORE 


CHICAGO 


TORONTO 





THE LATEST HICTION 
THE INSPIRING SORT 


Those Black Diamond Men. A Tale 
of the Anthrax Valley. By Wiruiam F. 
Gissons. Illustrated. $1.50. 


“It is a series of dramatic human scenes, sometimes with 
thrilling incidents, sometimes of tragic intensity, sometimes 
touched with humor.""—T be Outloos. 


By Order of the Prophet. A Tale ot 
the Occupation of the Great Salt Lake 
Basin. By Atrrep H. Henry. Illus. $1.50. 


True to history, founded upon actual incident, forceful in 
the telling and strong in the depiction of character, it is a 
worthy contribution to the literature of the making of the West. 


A Chinese Quaker. An Unfictitious Novel. 


By Ne wie Buessinc-Eysrer. Illus. $1.50. 


The title of this book is the poet-philanthropist Whittier's 
own phrase and itself forecasts a most romantic story—a record 
literally unique. Simply as a novel it is entertaining. 


Two Wilderness Voyagers A True 


Story of Indian Life. By Franxtin WeLtgs 


Carxins. 12mo, cloth, $1.50. 


“This romance of the Northwest graphically depicts the 
exciting adventures of escape and wandering, the drama of the 
great wilderness with its storms and floods,” 


My Host the Enemy, and Other Tales 
of the Northwest. By Franxirn WELLEs 


Catxins. Illustrated. 12mo, cloth,$1.50. 


“As narratives of actual adventure they demonstrate anew 
the fact that truth is certainly stranger than fiction,”—The 
Outlook. 


FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY 
NEW YORK CHICAGO TORONTO 





ey 


es 


Pai. 


ee, 
ry = 


ae 
Xo a 
si 


7 





Date Due 


@| © 
= 


a 
> Oo 
tu 
oe 


Dee 





1137 


L. B. Cat. No 


in 
i D008739880 »| 


[ 


220.6 J72B 19628 


School! of Religion 





